Nousaine wrote:

You 'have' no explanation. You only 'have' bull ****

oouch

Nousaine wrote:

Eddie; as far as I can tell there's no body more "dirty" that you save real car
salesman. Actually they seem to make people like you the first folks to avoid.

ouch, ouch!

one of Toms more technical posts todate!

yep.

Alma Gates
www.teamgates.org

Eddie Runner wrote:

Omnidirectional means the sound radiates away from the speaker
cone in ALL directions equally.

Omnidirectional simply implies all directions, it doesn't mean all
directions equally. That is why physicists make the point that something
(for instance, the zero point field of radiation) is omnidirection,
isotropic, and invariant.

--
Lizard
Science/Math Dork

Tom Nutstain Wrote:


Eddie; as far as I can tell there's no body more "dirty" that you save real car
salesman. Actually they seem to make people like you the first folks 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 been 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 (likely 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 dollars in
ads in the magazine the review appeared in.

There's nothing slimier than a hack audiophile who sells out his opinion.

--
Lizard

Eddie Runner wrote in message ...
http://installer.com/tech/aiming2.html

Nothing new there. Not only does it make the bass sound louder, it
feels better too! It should be noted that while facing subs backwards
is a fairly sound rule, it doesn't work in every case. Such as with my
92 Taurus. Ahh well, each to his own.

"thelizman" thelizman1221.yahoo@com wrote in message

Lizard
Nousaine has to be a democrat...only Clintonista's can lie, obfuscate,
backpedal, and equivocate with this level of skill.

yeah, republicans are super wicked better at it...
--
sancho

thelizman thelizman1221.yahoo@com wrote;

Here's a man who simply isn't interested in looking at the question in real
terms. He had made up his mind priorr and now is just waffling about because he
has nothing to add about the acoustics being discussed:

This post deserves no reply but some interested folks might benefit from
discussion.


Nousaine wrote:

Exactly How does Eddies subwoofer "know" that it's supposed to make MORE
SPL
when faced one way or another;

You keep saying that like it's supposed to mean something.

A given number of air molecules being excited can be influenced by the
direction of the woofer at omnidirection frequencies (where the woofer
radiation is equal in all directions) in exactly what way?


when his response graphs clearly show that
there is NO low frequency cancellations going on below 80 Hz.

Why should there be?

That's the point. There is no low frequency standing wave cancellation because
that's dependent on the wavelength of the sound which below 80 Hz, in this
example, is much greater then even the longest axial mode in the space.

Standing waves and cancellation effects occur at higher frequencies. In his
response pictures the ONLY cancellation happening is above 100 Hz.

Here's the situation:

1) you have an source with a given displacement (Vd; Xmax *2 * Sd @ amp power)

2) operating in a given space at omnidirectional frequencies (displacement
being radiated equally in all directions)

3) no cancellations observed (which would be dependent on wavelength in any
case) to reduce the SPL.

So tell me exactly "how" SPL at the microphone will be "increased" or
"decreased" in the frequency range of interest when you "aim" the box?

Come on, now. Think hard. Don't bust a gut because you eventually will have to;
because there is no possible way that direction can increase/decrease SPL in
this frequency range. It's omni afterall.

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

As if that's relevent...

Well of course it isn't below 100 Hz; (more typically 150Hz in the typical car)
but direction may be important, depending on application, at higher frequency
ranges.

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

What are those alleged limitations?

Vd; (stroke and piston area) and input power.

There, of course, are baiting questions. But keep it up. It shows how naive you
are acoustically.


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?

Are stroke and piston area (collectively, displacement) the only
factors? Because if that were the case, I should be able to rock a
theater with my 10" the way I rock my car.

Stroke is dependent on both suspension and motor strength/linearity. But, yes
linear displacement is the limiting factor.

You are forgetting that stroke is not limitied to just suspension travel. A
long-throw woofer without a charged magnet will have "no" stroke.

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

Who says that the woofer itself is doing any better?

Of course, it's not. So when working at Omni frequencies with NO acoustic
cancellations how can it develop MORE SPL dependent on woofer direction?



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.

Actually, that's not entirely true either and you know it. However, it's
not material to the discussion, since the woofer isn't behaving any
differently in either of those two tests.

That's exactly right. So with no acoustic cancellations to 'throw away' SPL how
can direction affect SPL?



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.


The size of the diaphragm is unimportant.

Strawman? Sure with a given system the cabin acoustics and the basic physics
apply to all woofers and all systems.


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?

Well, I think that before Eddie addresses it, you have to at least admit
that the phenomenon exists. Otherwise, it's pointless to talk to you (as
Jack Summer already knows all too well).


Oh my old friend Jack Sumner; Transparent Audio Marketing. You want to go
there? I dare you.

What bull**** "effect" do I have to admit to .....that wires improve sound
quality? That woofer direction affects SPL at subwoofer frequencies in cars?
That cd-demagnteizers demagnitize cds? That vinyl sounds better than cd? That
woofers require break-in? That a too-small amplifier burns out speakers?

This "admit to..." is an old high-end audio debating trick. The most commonly
encountered scenario might be with the argument about wires or power amplifiers
affecting the sound quality of a given system.

Once a person such as myself will "admit that it is 'possible' for wires to
affect sound quality (which they can; for example disconnect your speaker
cables) then the proponent begins telling exactly how much his wires are
improving the sound of his system.

As though this condition can be "negotiated."

In this case I'm guessing that I'm being asked to "admit" that woofer direction
can "possibly" affect subwoofer frequency performance in a car so that we can
"negotiate" exactly how much.

I don't play that game. It IS true that woofer placement and orientation CAN
affect subwoofer frequency performance in a car; BUT ALL of those "possible"
cases are not being discussed here.

For example it is possible to place a subwoofer so close to an interior panel
that the stroke is snubbed by long excursion into the panel. It is also
possible to change the resonant frequency of a sealed or ported enclosure with
panel-promimity. But this is an expert solution to known acoustical issues; NOT
something that pretenders like you and Eddie have any awareness.

I'm sorry but I will not negotiate acoustical reality with you.



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?

Obfuscation.


To what? The physical acoustics?


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?

Fallacy of presupposition.

Obfuscatory response. Fright of facing the real question.



--
Lizard
Nousaine has to be a democrat...only Clintonista's can lie, obfuscate,
backpedal, and equivocate with this level of skill.


I'm guessing that Eddie must be a Hillary-ite then. You too.

what is Eddie besides a salesman

if ed is a salesman, he's got to be the worst one ever

you've never met ed in 'real life', eh?
--
sancho
ed is not a salesman

(Scott Gardner) wrote:

On 11 Dec 2003 05:51:45 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:

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

I've discussed this at length. Eddie won't respond. As one enginner to
another
why are you questioning the physics?

Because Eddie's charts show a significant gain in SPL at the
microphone, depending on where the sub is located. If he's not lying
and producing the sweeps in Photoshop, then how is he getting those
results?

I don't know; because they are contrary to the laws of physics. It could be a
simple mistake (traces offset by a given amount) or it could be malfesance. I
don't know anything but those results do NOT represent what one would expect,
or that others haven't failed to replicate, with a simple rotation of the
enclosure face in a car.

IF "cancellations" are going on how do they know that they know to respond in
"non-accordance " mode?

And why is cancellation impossible in the spaces we're talking about?
The distance from the sub to the rear of the vehicle is approaching
1/2 wavelength of the frequencies under test.


No its not. At 60 Hz the 1/2 wavelength is is 9.5 feet. At 40 Hz it's more like
14-feet. At 22 ft it's 26 feet. At 10 Hz it's 57 feet.

Also, you'll notice
that the gains are not equal across the board - they're much smaller
at lower frequencies, and get larger as the frequency increases. This
would make sense with cancellation, because the phase difference
between the primary wave coming from the sub and the reflected wave
bouncing off the rear of the vehicle is going to be closer to 1/2
wavelength for the higher frequencies.

Not True. Even if this were true why do we NOT see the "cancellations" that
Eddie insists really happen in a given acoustical environment?

Thus, if there is interference
between the waves, I'd expect the effect to be larger at higher
frequencies.

Scott Gardner

Of course. Don't you wonder why that bandwidth was ignored by Eddie?

A given driver/enclosure systen has a given thermal capability; a given
linear
stroke capability (Xmax); A physcially measure-able piston area and so a
good
approximation of SPL @ any distance.

Soon you'll find that Eddie Runner will begin "arguing" over anything
published. he doesn't like. This is pretty common with small-time retailers.

Eddie Runner wrote;

Nousaine wrote:

You 'have' no explanation. You only 'have' bull ****

oouch

This is Eddie's standard way of avoiding the engineering/acoustic questions.

no lie... I can't imagine the industry, whether it be fertilizer, shoes,
or possibly agricultural products, that would embrace Ed as a salesman.
Anyone that would argue a point as far as he's willing to has no place
on the sales floor.

Ed: "This woofer box will sound a lot better if we point it towards the
back, trust me."

Customer: "I tried that, but it's going in a stakebed truck and the only
one that can hear the bass when I do it like that is the cop I just blew
past."

Ed: "Damn it Tom, don't argue with me - I've been doing this stuff since
you were still forming in your dad's nutsack."

Customer: "Uh, ok - maybe I'll just run down the road to Circuit City
then..."

JD

sancho wrote:

what is Eddie besides a salesman



if ed is a salesman, he's got to be the worst one ever

you've never met ed in 'real life', eh?
--
sancho
ed is not a salesman

thelizman thelizman1221.yahoo@com wrote:

Another phoney "Jack Summer" attempt to divert attention away from the
physics/acoustics content.

So be it:


Tom Nutstain Wrote:


Eddie; as far as I can tell there's no body more "dirty" that you save real
car
salesman. Actually they seem to make people like you the first folks 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 been 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 (likely 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.

OK; why don't you tell me "exactly" how manufacturers often send me enclosures
that don't appear to be optimal? I'll always use the enclosure (unless grossly
incompetent) supplied because that's what they want.

As a rule I'd rather NOT get yet another enclosure that I have to unpack-repack
and send back. And most likely the supplied enclosures DO NOT improve
performance.

If there appear to be a significant discreapancy between modeled performance
and he suppiled enclosure I'' always bow to the better alternative.

So tell me what product exists where I intentionally screwed the manufacturer?
To what product did I give an un-fair advantage? Do you have some "better
stories" to share with Eddie?


Coincidentally, GLOVE AUDIO was buying tens of thousands of dollars in
ads in the magazine the review appeared in.

There's nothing slimier than a hack audiophile who sells out his opinion.

--
Lizard

delvryboy udiof
wrote:

now....face that driver into the cabin in a trunked car....and seal off
the baffle completely...trunk/cabin

whole different monster
--
delvryboy

I'm a fan of Infinite Baffle woofers.They ofen offer the best woofers with the
least amount of operating faults.

Eddie Runner wrote:

Nousaine wrote:

But help me out. At omnidirectional frequencies, where sound is radiating
equally in all directions; exactly how can a woofer/enclosure/amp system
increase its displacement of air molecules when you do nothing more than
walk
around it or have it on a turntable?

it cant... we both know that.... why do you keep asking this question?

no one is claiming the woofer suddenly has more output!!

What is happening is that the reflections add or take away from the sound
as you walk around or the woofer is moved.

What reflections? You are outside.

I think this is about the 11th time since I started keeping track that
I have explained this....

Eddie RUnner

You've never explained this.

Eddie Runner wrote:



Nousaine wrote:

That's true; and Eddies graphs show 1) there's no energy distribution
differences below roughly 100 Hz.

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

and so on...... in fact there are differences at almost all frequencies
ARE YOU BLIND?????

Take as look at the other cars also Tom!
There are differences at MOST frequencies below 100Hz
on every car!!

Someone else said you didnt even look at the graphs.
I think they are right...

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

Are you blind? Or just stupid? In the Neon the sound pressure distribution is
equally 'different" at all frequencies below 100 Hz. So exactly ''how" does
that woofer system have 'reflections' that cancel equally at every frequency?

Just above 100 Hz there is a large frequency hole that appears to be a standing
wave pattern which would be 50 Hz lower in frequency than the typical cabin
resonance. That's all plausible. But the even "level" difference at roughly 80
Hz and downward show a condition that is impossible to explain by
"reflections."

What gives? How does your woofer at 20 and 40 Hz (wavelengths of 52 and 26
feet) develop "reflections" in that car that will cause EQUAL cancellation at
every frequency?

Eddie Runner

Nousaine wrote:

If you'll check Mobile Entertainment and the old Car Stereo Review you'll
see
examples of the boundary and transfer function effects in woofer
evaluations
contained in practically every issue.

Sorry, those got used up as toilet paper long ago...

Why do you say to find a magazine several years old?

Is it like when you quoted that other book and you thought
I didnt actually have a copy and I did???

ha ha ha
Suprised the **** out of you didnt it?
ha ha ha

http://installer.com/tech/baranek.html

read this

Oh yes Dr Baranek; the guy whose name you immediately forgot to spell when you
returned the book to the library. And the guy who showed that a 'standing wave'
needs an opposing parallel surface to form a 'standing wave.'

Eddie Runner wrote:

Nousaine wrote:

There is one other small advantage to placing the woofer/port face close to
a
boundary that may be advantageous (of which, Eddie seems to be totally
ignorant, given the ****-poor basic response of the graphs on his
web-site.)

it was a random woofer in a random test box, the woofer was a closed box
design with no tuning port.

Random woofer? Random test box? that's a good one. I'd guess random might
pretty well describe your understanding of in-car acoustics. ha ha
describe
The in car response was not meant to be FLAT
it was just used to test the sound differences due to box location ...

Your trying to change the subject to somehow DIS me because the woofer
response isnt as flat as you would like it.....

Eddie Runner wrote:



Nousaine wrote:

Eddie wants to imply that I'm a drunk. Sounds like desperation to me.

Just a theory,
will you take a breathalizer?

BTW, have you ever been arrested for DWI??

ha ha .. gothcha!

No; have you?? ha ha ....gotcha!

(John Dziurlaj) wrote:

Eddie Runner wrote in message
...
http://installer.com/tech/aiming2.html

Nothing new there. Not only does it make the bass sound louder, it
feels better too! It should be noted that while facing subs backwards
is a fairly sound rule, it doesn't work in every case. Such as with my
92 Taurus. Ahh well, each to his own.

Gee here are 2 exceptions. Vina's Jetta and now your Taurus. Do just these 2
vehicles violate the Eddie Runner new Universe laws of physics?

Gee here are 2 exceptions. Vina's Jetta and now your Taurus. Do just these 2
vehicles violate the Eddie Runner new Universe laws of physics?



Noone ever said it would work in ALL vehicles. But you are claiming the
opposite that it wont work in ANY vehicles. BTW Tom I am still waiting for you
responses to my questions.

Les

John Durbin wrote:

no lie... I can't imagine the industry, whether it be fertilizer,
shoes, or possibly agricultural products, that would embrace Ed as a
salesman. Anyone that would argue a point as far as he's willing to
has no place on the sales floor.

Ed: "This woofer box will sound a lot better if we point it towards
the back, trust me."

Customer: "I tried that, but it's going in a stakebed truck and the
only one that can hear the bass when I do it like that is the cop I
just blew past."

Ed: "Damn it Tom, don't argue with me - I've been doing this stuff
since you were still forming in your dad's nutsack."

Customer: "Uh, ok - maybe I'll just run down the road to Circuit City
then..."


thats good JD! Real good!
But you left out the rest!!!!

Ed: Dont let the door hit you on the way out!

Later..............

Customer: I have been to everyplace in town and no one can make it
sound good it appears you were right all along!

Ed: told ya so!

Customer : please!!??

Ed: alright but it will cost ya extra...

Customer: No problem, your the only guy in town that can make it sound
good! Can I buy you lunch?



I aint a salesman cause I just cant lie to a customer, I dont do a
killing on massive
amounts of sales in my store, but I do have a bunch of customers that
are happy
and a reputation that I can fix what the other places mess up! (even
other shops call me
for help) Most of my sales come from word of mouth from previous
happy customers... We dont even have to advertise!

So far my store hass been in biz for 13 years and I have seen so many
car audio
stores big and small shut thier doors.... I must be doing something
right..!!

Sorry Tom, I dont even drink.... ha ha

Nousaine wrote:

Eddie Runner wrote:



Nousaine wrote:

Eddie wants to imply that I'm a drunk. Sounds like desperation to me.

Just a theory,
will you take a breathalizer?

BTW, have you ever been arrested for DWI??

ha ha .. gothcha!

No; have you?? ha ha ....gotcha!

Nousaine 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

Are you blind? Or just stupid? In the Neon the sound pressure distribution is
equally 'different" at all frequencies below 100 Hz. So exactly ''how" does
that woofer system have 'reflections' that cancel equally at every frequency?

1) the SPL is lower with the woofer aimed forward... Can you see that on the
chart?

2) you dont believe the chart because you think there cannot be a difference.

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???????)

4) The reflections have changed because the woofer location has changed.

5) Since you dont believe any of this that explains why you kept on and on about
the woofer knowing when to turn itself up..?? Pretty funny....

6) Im just sharing some graphs, you dont believe they are real, you even question

my integrity as to creating the graphs fraudulently... I even posted names of

witnesses to the tests...

7) I cant prove it to you unless you come on down here or you do your own tests.
you have been in audio for a long time, you cant teach an old dog new tricks
unless they wanna learn... If you would rather believe I made the graphs in
photoshop I dont see any amount of argueing with you that can change your
mind if you wont listen....

8) I have invited anyone that wants to show up to stop by and witness the tests.

9) everytime I post something relevant, you hold your hands on your ears and
sing very loudly " LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA"

Always with the insults!
I have never been much of a speller! I have always admitted that.
Since you wont post data of your own, I guess your only high point is
to DIS me for my bad spelling....

And that book isnt a library book, it is right here right now.
P.211 8.4 Open backed cabinets. An open-back cabinet is simply a box with
one side missing and with the loudspeaker mounted in the side opposite.....

If you open to page 211 you will see that is the text .....
any other pages you want me to read to you so you wont be staying up so late..

Eddie Runner

Nousaine wrote:

Oh yes Dr Baranek; the guy whose name you immediately forgot to spell when you
returned the book to the library. And the guy who showed that a 'standing wave'
needs an opposing parallel surface to form a 'standing wave.'

Tom just does not believe my sweeps are right because he has
been believing the MYTH that moving the woofer wont make a
difference for so long....

He is afraid to do his own comparison sweeps because he knows
he is wrong, and he would hate to have to admit it....

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

Nousaine wrote:


I don't know; because they are contrary to the laws of physics. It could be a
simple mistake (traces offset by a given amount) or it could be malfesance. I
don't know anything but those results do NOT represent what one would expect,
or that others haven't failed to replicate, with a simple rotation of the
enclosure face in a car.

ouch!

Nousaine wrote:


Soon you'll find that Eddie Runner will begin "arguing" over anything
published. he doesn't like. This is pretty common with small-time retailers.

I never said it was a bad thing... just that you shouldn't be mistaken
for a salesman :-)

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!

JD
Is your wife is the only one that ever gets away with telling you you're
wrong?

Eddie Runner wrote:

John Durbin wrote:



no lie... I can't imagine the industry, whether it be fertilizer,
shoes, or possibly agricultural products, that would embrace Ed as a
salesman. Anyone that would argue a point as far as he's willing to
has no place on the sales floor.

Ed: "This woofer box will sound a lot better if we point it towards
the back, trust me."

Customer: "I tried that, but it's going in a stakebed truck and the
only one that can hear the bass when I do it like that is the cop I
just blew past."

Ed: "Damn it Tom, don't argue with me - I've been doing this stuff
since you were still forming in your dad's nutsack."

Customer: "Uh, ok - maybe I'll just run down the road to Circuit City
then..."




thats good JD! Real good!
But you left out the rest!!!!

Ed: Dont let the door hit you on the way out!

Later..............

Customer: I have been to everyplace in town and no one can make it
sound good it appears you were right all along!

Ed: told ya so!

Customer : please!!??

Ed: alright but it will cost ya extra...

Customer: No problem, your the only guy in town that can make it sound
good! Can I buy you lunch?



I aint a salesman cause I just cant lie to a customer, I dont do a
killing on massive
amounts of sales in my store, but I do have a bunch of customers that
are happy
and a reputation that I can fix what the other places mess up! (even
other shops call me
for help) Most of my sales come from word of mouth from previous
happy customers... We dont even have to advertise!

So far my store hass been in biz for 13 years and I have seen so many
car audio
stores big and small shut thier doors.... I must be doing something
right..!!

dude.... can you pull your head outta your ass for just a sec and see that
when the sub is placed facing the back that the output is 2-3DB more from
100hz on down.... even more so in the 100hz -50hz region..... the BOOM
region, Isn't this what all car stereo dorks want when cruising the local
high school in their mid 80's vette????

even in the lower 20 to 30hz region there is a boost...... if there
wasn't... the purple and green lines would corrispond.... are you so caught
up in your DISproven bull****, not to NOTICE THAT SIMPLE FACT???

FHLH...... and I thought Ed was stubburn...... you take the proverbial
****in' cake.



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



Are you blind? Or just stupid? In the Neon the sound pressure distribution
is
equally 'different" at all frequencies below 100 Hz. So exactly ''how"
does
that woofer system have 'reflections' that cancel equally at every
frequency?

Just above 100 Hz there is a large frequency hole that appears to be a
standing
wave pattern which would be 50 Hz lower in frequency than the typical
cabin
resonance. That's all plausible. But the even "level" difference at
roughly 80
Hz and downward show a condition that is impossible to explain by
"reflections."

What gives? How does your woofer at 20 and 40 Hz (wavelengths of 52 and 26
feet) develop "reflections" in that car that will cause EQUAL
cancellation at
every frequency?

no, dumbass.... I've seen no graphs to show a loss of output when facing a
sub backwards in a Taurus or Jetta..... the accounts we have of these
vehicles has been subjective at best, titturd.

Although.... I've owned a jetta at one time (biggest POS, didn't come with
the gold chains and pinky ring options) and the subs "hit" louder and harder
when facing the traffic following my boom machine..... Man.. that system
pulled soooo much wool! .... (say... that reminds me, you ever been laid?
It's ****in awesome....)

Anyway.... have a good time trying to spread your bull****....and again...
how you have made such a name for yourself in this industry baffles me...
You remind me of a semi - smarter version of Richard "Dick" Clark.....I
mean... at least you're right about some stuff (those articles on cables)

FHLH..... I love RAC.... can't get banned here for speaking your mind!





"Nousaine" wrote in message
...
(John Dziurlaj) wrote:

Eddie Runner wrote in message
...
http://installer.com/tech/aiming2.html

Nothing new there. Not only does it make the bass sound louder, it
feels better too! It should be noted that while facing subs backwards
is a fairly sound rule, it doesn't work in every case. Such as with my
92 Taurus. Ahh well, each to his own.

Gee here are 2 exceptions. Vina's Jetta and now your Taurus. Do just these
2
vehicles violate the Eddie Runner new Universe laws of physics?

he hasn't..... I may be wrong here... but could someone point me to a link
of a car the Nutstain has built???

FHLH


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

Have you noticed that Eddie and his minions never get this close to real
system
tuning? They have 'rules of thumb' of which many are just Urban Legends
or
computer based acoustical equipment that they have, just-now, gotten
"around"
to doing some measurements in spite of pontificating on the acoustics
for
years.

Nousaine tries so hard to make me look bad.....
here he is DISSing me as if I have never tuned a car before based on
the tests... What a ****head!

I tried, and tried some more to talk to this dickless ****head in a nice
way and he knows!!

So now he just wants to DIS me about other things!!

dunno Ed... but this kinda talk borders on Slander in my Book, simply
because I've had you work on a few cars of mine and have never felt like I
was scammed or that you where a "dirty" person that is lower than the
average car salesman..... you are dirty.... but that's in the literal sense!

What is amazing is that this kinda crap is spewing from the ass of such a
knowledgeable car audio god, such as nutstain... you figured if he was such
a fart smeller... he'd be able to de-bunk your graphs....

FHLH......


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

Eddie; as far as I can tell there's no body more "dirty" that you save
real car
salesman. Actually they seem to make people like you the first folks to
avoid.

ouch, ouch!

one of Toms more technical posts todate!

go **** yourself.... you've proved nothing.


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

Nousaine wrote:

You 'have' no explanation. You only 'have' bull ****

oouch

This is Eddie's standard way of avoiding the engineering/acoustic
questions.

awesome...... nothing like an "elitist snob" reply....


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


Here's another. I have some other professional activities to which to
tend.

Uh, Foggy....
look at my graphs, they do show a Jetta and it does loose bass
when the woofer is aimed forward....
http://www.installer.com/tech/aiming2.html

The rest of that paragraph I agreee with u on...

fhlh002 wrote:

no, dumbass.... I've seen no graphs to show a loss of output when facing a
sub backwards in a Taurus or Jetta..... the accounts we have of these
vehicles has been subjective at best, titturd.

he hasnt even tried to debunk my graphs...
he just claims it aint possible....

ha ha ha

that tells ya right there he prolly makes up the **** he writes in the
magazines late at night after the bars close while in a drunken stupor.
he prolly dont even have any test equipment of his own.....

I showed ya mine!

fhlh002 wrote:

What is amazing is that this kinda crap is spewing from the ass of such a
knowledgeable car audio god, such as nutstain... you figured if he was such
a fart smeller... he'd be able to de-bunk your graphs....

FHLH......

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

damnit.... I was referring to the mid 80's jetta.... silly me....


FHLH... amazing how different cars (even vettes) behave differently.


"Eddie Runner" wrote in message
...
Uh, Foggy....
look at my graphs, they do show a Jetta and it does loose bass
when the woofer is aimed forward....
http://www.installer.com/tech/aiming2.html

The rest of that paragraph I agreee with u on...

fhlh002 wrote:

no, dumbass.... I've seen no graphs to show a loss of output when facing
a
sub backwards in a Taurus or Jetta..... the accounts we have of these
vehicles has been subjective at best, titturd.

(Nousaine) wrote in message ...

Eddie Runner wrote:

Nousaine wrote:

But you made a great issue of different directions, did you not?

Im not sure what your talking about?
Sounds do go in many directions I never said they didnt...

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 dont see any of the messages in this thread. Anyways. How I
understand a type of standing wave is two "carrier waves" moving in
opposite directions producing a modulation. I think I worded that
right. There was a visual on a website i'm looking for. I did this
by accident with Cooledit messing with tone generator and modulation
or overlap settings. But I cant remember how I did it. So its kind
of ****ing me off. Because the method visually can be extrapolated
from the tone generator settings. Its an interesting model to ponder.

The wave looked like if you took a pencil and lightly colored in a
solid band from left to right. Then drew in a squiggly like this.

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.'


Why not give us your evedence instead of trying to pick apart
my posts???

Eddie Runner

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

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?

Help us here. Please.

I dont recognise his terminology. But if what he is talking about
fits my model its not cancelation as in with that sound canceller they
use to silence sounds. They have used them with helicopters to get
them to fly essentially "chopper free". Cancelation in this regard is
one wave thats flipped and played at equal intensity which silences
the other wave.

This standing wave pattern has two waves of equal intensity hitting
and producing a artifical "harmonic" modulation. Now we can use
different "wave" patterns like surf, or visual occilation. How its
done on a tone generator obviously isnt "two sounds travelling in
opposite directions". But you could produce a heterodyne effect Ie:
pasting a 440hz over a 438hz producing a 3hz warble. Mix pasting and
modulation of a carrier wave are also ways to produce artifical
heterodyne/harmonics.

"fhlh002"
wrote:


dude.... can you pull your head outta your ass for just a sec and see that
when the sub is placed facing the back that the output is 2-3DB more from
100hz on down.... even more so in the 100hz -50hz region..... the BOOM
region, Isn't this what all car stereo dorks want when cruising the local
high school in their mid 80's vette????

even in the lower 20 to 30hz region there is a boost...... if there
wasn't... the purple and green lines would corrispond.... are you so caught
up in your DISproven bull****, not to NOTICE THAT SIMPLE FACT???

What simple fact? That Eddie's standing wave "cancellations" with signals of
radically different wavelengths occur equally at the same-boundary distance
below 80 Hz and are only frequency-boundary distance dependent above 100 Hz?

IF there WERE wavelength standing wave "cancellations" occuring below 80 Hz
like you see in his graph then we would have 'notches' like the one you see
above 100 Hz.

If you'll go to www.m-emag.com and check any woofer review you'll see these
effects clearly shown over a 10-3 kHz bandwidth comparing the near-field
(quasi-anechoic) response to the response in the driver's seat with a 6-mic
average (adjusted for distance.)

They show the cabin transfer function (+30 dB reinforcement at 10 Hz); the
complete lack of standing wave "cancellations" below 60 Hz; and the boundary
interactions at higher frequencies.

In the October 1999 Car Stereo Review you'll see graphs that show tne
near-field vs drivers seat comparions with 4 drivers that face up/down and to
the side wall and mid-seat in a '9 GMC Sierra extended cab pick-up all of which
show the same lack of 'cancellations' below 100 Hz and roughly the same cabin
transfer function reinforcement as the Corvette indicating they acoustically
have the same cabin volume.


FHLH...... and I thought Ed was stubburn...... you take the proverbial
****in' cake.



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



Are you blind? Or just stupid? In the Neon the sound pressure distribution
is
equally 'different" at all frequencies below 100 Hz. So exactly ''how"
does
that woofer system have 'reflections' that cancel equally at every
frequency?

Just above 100 Hz there is a large frequency hole that appears to be a
standing
wave pattern which would be 50 Hz lower in frequency than the typical
cabin
resonance. That's all plausible. But the even "level" difference at
roughly 80
Hz and downward show a condition that is impossible to explain by
"reflections."

What gives? How does your woofer at 20 and 40 Hz (wavelengths of 52 and 26
feet) develop "reflections" in that car that will cause EQUAL
cancellation at
every frequency?

Your honor; counsel refuses to address the question. Which leads me to the
conclusion that he can only hurl insults and call names; just like his client.