kicker ks69

[bob wald]

I know kicker makes 1 of the best speakers under $100. i'm thinking of
trying one.but will it sound as good as my 4yr old cerwin vega
6x9s,3way?

[Chris Mullins]

troll you should already know the answer, we're all stupid remember?


"bob wald" > wrote in message
...
> I know kicker makes 1 of the best speakers under $100. i'm thinking of
> trying one.but will it sound as good as my 4yr old cerwin vega
> 6x9s,3way?
>

[Kirby]

"bob wald" > wrote in message
...
> I know kicker makes 1 of the best speakers under $100. i'm thinking of
> trying one.but will it sound as good as my 4yr old cerwin vega
> 6x9s,3way?

Why don't you stick to your best speakers under $30?

[Jethro]

It really doesn't matter... unless you have a vehicle with door or dash
mounted 6x9's, they are just a waste of money. You would be better off
spending the money to improve the sound of your front stage rather than
the sound coming from behind you.


--
Jethro

old school SQ guy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jethro's Profile: http://www.caraudioforum.com/vbb3/member.php?userid=18662
View this thread: http://www.caraudioforum.com/vbb3/showthread.php?t=226333
CarAudioForum.com - Usenet Gateway w/over one million posts online!

[bob wald]

jethro...my front speakers are already a+....
also i dont believe the bs about yur rear speakers are a waste.it all
blends to make the overall sound of your car.
Since you usually put 35% more power to the rear speakers...
ALSO TO those of YOU..how could I know about HOW KICKER sounds if I
never heard ONE.SO I DONT know everything.

[bob wald]

also kicker ks69s are going for $75.usually $119.....

[Jethro]

"jethro...my front speakers are already a+....
also i dont believe the bs about yur rear speakers are a waste.it all
blends to make the overall sound of your car.
Since you usually put 35% more power to the rear speakers...
ALSO TO those of YOU..how could I know about HOW KICKER sounds if I
never heard ONE.SO I DONT know everything."

Why on earth would you put more power to your rear speakers than to you
put to your front? The goal is not to make a front/rear blended
sound... it is to create a realistic FRONT stage. When you go to a
concert, you sit with the musicians in FRONT of you, so the goal in a
car should be to have sound coming from in FRONT of you as well.

Having multiple speakers producing the same frequencies from different
locations inside a car will only degrade the sound. A nice set of
components (or a really nice set of coaxials) in the front doors or
kick panels is usually the best option, but you can also get some
success mounting midbasses in the doors and tweeters in the dash (if
you do it right). I personally prefer no rear fill at all... and many
other in the car audio world feel the same way (many award winning SQ
vehicles).

Go find a local Kicker dealer and listen to the KS69's in person...
that is really the best way to know if they sound good or not.


--
Jethro

old school SQ guy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jethro's Profile: http://www.caraudioforum.com/vbb3/member.php?userid=18662
View this thread: http://www.caraudioforum.com/vbb3/showthread.php?t=226357
CarAudioForum.com - Usenet Gateway w/over one million posts online!

[MZ]

> Why on earth would you put more power to your rear speakers than to you
>put to your front? The goal is not to make a front/rear blended
>sound... it is to create a realistic FRONT stage.

Who says?

[bob wald]

different speakers even with the same frez will not sound alike..like
6x9s to 5 1/4s..so on.....
and different brands......
i've decided i must lower my advice.you dont even know the simplest
things.by this one here..lol is this guy 1 of your lil gangs
smartest?????

[Jethro]

MZ Wrote:
> > Why on earth would you put more power to your rear speakers than to
> you
> >put to your front? The goal is not to make a front/rear blended
> >sound... it is to create a realistic FRONT stage.
>
> Who says?

Logic. It just makes sense...

That should be the goal of any respectable sound system. Even a stock
sound system should be faded forward so that a majority of the sound is
coming from the front speakers. If you want more bass, buy a sub... but
don't throw an amp on full-range rear speakers.


--
Jethro

old school SQ guy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jethro's Profile: http://www.caraudioforum.com/vbb3/member.php?userid=18662
View this thread: http://www.caraudioforum.com/vbb3/showthread.php?t=226357
CarAudioForum.com - Usenet Gateway w/over one million posts online!

[Brandonb]

Jethro wrote:
> Logic. It just makes sense...
>
> That should be the goal of any respectable sound system. Even a stock
> sound system should be faded forward so that a majority of the sound is
> coming from the front speakers. If you want more bass, buy a sub... but
> don't throw an amp on full-range rear speakers.

Or he could listen to his ears and his own likes and dislikes and make
it sound good to him. Everyone has different preferences when it comes
to sound. I myself prefer to make it seem like I'm being bombarded from
all sides. Some people like front only and hate any concept or rear
sound. Others like it just from the rear (kinky *******s). The whole
Front-stage and proper imaging thing is over-rated in my humble opinion.
I could care less if it sounds like a live band and it sounds like the
guitar is coming from 3 feet to the left of center stage or whatever. I
like what sounds good to me, and more power to you on yours.

Brandonb

[bob wald]

oh i see now...you fade forward.....now i see why you dont hear your
rear deck...so you think you dont need them.....
listen..you are going to hear your fronts first anyways..if you fade to
them.then why have rears? youre cutting your rears out....
listen 6x9s are awsome.....solid mid bass/bass and more power
handling.....
now i have jvc/c.v/pioneer 6x9s but i was thinking of trying higher
end.not saying those c.v aint high end but they over 5yrs old....

[Jethro]

"different speakers even with the same frez will not sound alike..like
6x9s to 5 1/4s..so on.....
and different brands......
i've decided i must lower my advice.you dont even know the simplest
things.by this one here..lol is this guy 1 of your lil gangs
smartest?????"

Bob, f you would speak English maybe I could tell what the heck you
just said there. I would offer a rebuttal to your comment, but it
really does not make ANY sense.

And I don't belong to any "little gang"... I am posting this through
www.caraudioforum.com ...maybe you should stop by and get a little
education.


--
Jethro

old school SQ guy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jethro's Profile: http://www.caraudioforum.com/vbb3/member.php?userid=18662
View this thread: http://www.caraudioforum.com/vbb3/showthread.php?t=226385
CarAudioForum.com - Usenet Gateway w/over one million posts online!

[Jethro]

Brandonb Wrote:
> Jethro wrote:
> > Logic. It just makes sense...
> >
> > That should be the goal of any respectable sound system. Even a
> stock
> > sound system should be faded forward so that a majority of the sound
> is
> > coming from the front speakers. If you want more bass, buy a sub...
> but
> > don't throw an amp on full-range rear speakers.
>
> Or he could listen to his ears and his own likes and dislikes and make
> it sound good to him. Everyone has different preferences when it comes
> to sound. I myself prefer to make it seem like I'm being bombarded
> from
> all sides. Some people like front only and hate any concept or rear
> sound. Others like it just from the rear (kinky *******s). The whole
> Front-stage and proper imaging thing is over-rated in my humble
> opinion.
> I could care less if it sounds like a live band and it sounds like the
> guitar is coming from 3 feet to the left of center stage or whatever.
> I
> like what sounds good to me, and more power to you on yours.
>
> Brandonb

If mediocre sound is the goal, then what is the point of discussing it
over the internet? People often like the 'surround sound' effect
because they've heard that's what sounds good from the likes of Bose.

I can't tell him if the Kicker 6x9's will sound good to his ears, just
like I can't convince him that the sound should come from in front of
him... so it really doesn't matter. But I will not change my advice
just because someone enjoys listening to their audio system in a way
that is technically wrong.


--
Jethro

old school SQ guy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jethro's Profile: http://www.caraudioforum.com/vbb3/member.php?userid=18662
View this thread: http://www.caraudioforum.com/vbb3/showthread.php?t=226357
CarAudioForum.com - Usenet Gateway w/over one million posts online!

[I. Care]

In article >,
says...
> oh i see now...you fade forward.....now i see why you dont hear your
> rear deck...so you think you dont need them.....
> listen..you are going to hear your fronts first anyways..if you fade to
> them.then why have rears? youre cutting your rears out....
> listen 6x9s are awsome.....solid mid bass/bass and more power
> handling.....
> now i have jvc/c.v/pioneer 6x9s but i was thinking of trying higher
> end.not saying those c.v aint high end but they over 5yrs old....
>
>
I don't hear my front speakers first. They are time aligned (delayed)
so the car sounds like a live concert hall or the way the audio was
intended to sound by the recording group. My subs sound like they are
in the front also. When was the last time you went to a live concert
and heard the bass guitar or double bass in the back of the audience?
Why do you think many high-end car audio competitors were putting their
subs in the firewall or floor?
Yes it's possible to get reflections and reverb within a particular
hall, but to realistically hear that you need to have surround sound.
That is why car audio equipment companys are comming out with that type
systems.
--
I. Care
Address fake until the SPAM goes away ;-}

[MZ]

> > Why on earth would you put more power to your rear speakers than to
> you
> > >put to your front? The goal is not to make a front/rear blended
> > >sound... it is to create a realistic FRONT stage.
> >
> > Who says?
>
> Logic. It just makes sense...
>
> That should be the goal of any respectable sound system. Even a stock
>sound system should be faded forward so that a majority of the sound is
>coming from the front speakers. If you want more bass, buy a sub... but
>don't throw an amp on full-range rear speakers.

That's not what you said. You said "the goal is not to make a f/r blended
sound." Well, who says? A front stage is nice and all, but some music
doesn't take advantage of it as well as others. Sometimes the goal is to,
say, immerse yourself in an ocean of sound. Sometimes it's to provide the
biggest "punch". Sometimes it's to attempt to achieve the "flattest"
frequency response at high output levels. Different goals for different
folks.

While I agree with the notion that the front stage is more important than
the rears, which is due in part to imaging but also due to things like
frequency response irregularities, phase shifts and reflections, bass
response (proximity), and so forth. However, I wouldn't say completely
ignore the rears. If you can afford to, amplify the back speakers in
addition to the fronts. And yeah, try it with and without rears too.

Not that I'm disagreeing with the sentiment of what you posted, but I
think it's important to clarify exactly what the goals should be - make it
sound best to your ears. Whether that means a lot of power, a little
power, or no power to the rears depends on the listener.

[MZ]

> If mediocre sound is the goal, then what is the point of discussing it
> over the internet? People often like the 'surround sound' effect
> because they've heard that's what sounds good from the likes of Bose.

What Brandon described is not "surround sound". Surround sound relies on
time delays to mimic positioning of various sounds of a musical or other
passage. Brandon didn't say or imply anything of the sort.

For instance, I have 12 channels of time alignment going to adjust my
rears and others so that they're all "in phase" with the fronts. I've
attempted to get rid of the delay with my setup. That's the opposite
strategy of surround sound.

> I can't tell him if the Kicker 6x9's will sound good to his ears, just
> like I can't convince him that the sound should come from in front of
> him... so it really doesn't matter. But I will not change my advice
> just because someone enjoys listening to their audio system in a way
> that is technically wrong.

Please explain how it is "technically wrong."

[bob wald]

i meant will sound alike....oops

[bob wald]

uuhh i'm sorry when my stereo is on i hear all of it. not the fronts
then the rears....then the fronts again..... its all at once mostly....

[bob wald]

jethro..i didnt ask howd itd sound to me but kicker, is it better than
alot in quality,wear,overall sound?
what you you say is as good a brand as kicker? sony,kenwood,jl,jbl,polk
or infinity?

[Jethro]

bob wald Wrote:
> jethro..i didnt ask howd itd sound to me but kicker, is it better than
> alot in quality,wear,overall sound?
> what you you say is as good a brand as kicker?
> sony,kenwood,jl,jbl,polk
> or infinity?

Of the brands you list, I would rate them like this (in general):

1. JL Audio
2. JBL / Polk / Kicker / Cerwin Vega
3. Kenwood
4. Sony

I would expect the Kicker 6x9's to have good midbass, as Kicker
speakers are known for having good output. They also are known for
having high quality speakers that take decent abuse.

The big unknown for someone who hasn't heard that particular speaker
(or line of speakers) is the tweeter. Every type of tweeter sounds
different... that is why it is important that YOU determine if they
sound good or not. To my ears a soft dome tweeter sounds good, but to
others; a metal dome sounds better...

I would think that at the price you listed, they would be a good deal.


--
Jethro

old school SQ guy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jethro's Profile: http://www.caraudioforum.com/vbb3/member.php?userid=18662
View this thread: http://www.caraudioforum.com/vbb3/showthread.php?t=226427
CarAudioForum.com - Usenet Gateway w/over one million posts online!

[Scott Gardner]

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 15:29:04 -0500, Brandonb
> wrote:

>Jethro wrote:
>> Logic. It just makes sense...
>>
>> That should be the goal of any respectable sound system. Even a stock
>> sound system should be faded forward so that a majority of the sound is
>> coming from the front speakers. If you want more bass, buy a sub... but
>> don't throw an amp on full-range rear speakers.
>
>Or he could listen to his ears and his own likes and dislikes and make
>it sound good to him. Everyone has different preferences when it comes
>to sound. I myself prefer to make it seem like I'm being bombarded from
>all sides. Some people like front only and hate any concept or rear
>sound. Others like it just from the rear (kinky *******s). The whole
>Front-stage and proper imaging thing is over-rated in my humble opinion.
>I could care less if it sounds like a live band and it sounds like the
>guitar is coming from 3 feet to the left of center stage or whatever. I
>like what sounds good to me, and more power to you on yours.
>
>Brandonb

To each his own, that's true, but part of the problem is that Bob has
a habit of throwing out these bull**** "rules of thumb", like his
statement that you should put 35% more power to the rear speakers than
the front, or that amplifiers can only put out 88% of their rated
power.

If he wants to tailor HIS system to HIS own tastes, that's fine, but
putting out these suspiciously-precise figures and guidelines as
gospel to the rest of the readers is horse****.

--
Scott Gardner

"The media finally figured out that their "paying customers" (i.e. advertisers) don't WANT an intelligent, thoughtful audience. And they no longer have one." (Rich Tietjens)

[Scott Gardner]

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 21:30:45 -0500, (bob wald)
wrote:

>uuhh i'm sorry when my stereo is on i hear all of it. not the fronts
>then the rears....then the fronts again..... its all at once mostly....

So why did you say in your earlier post that you hear front speakers
first?

Here's your post, in case you forgot:

"listen..you are going to hear your fronts first anyways..if you fade
to them.then why have rears"


--
Scott Gardner

"Sense is not cognition but sensation." (Douglas Robinson)

[bob wald]

the reason you put more power to the rears is to make it all come
togeher at the same time better.or blend better.
or it would be out of phase i guess...youd hear one part after the
fronts play thier part of that same part of the song.even though were
talking less than a secomd i guess.
So to balnce out the farther distance to the rears.more power ''scotty
damit!'' HA
i can never get his scottish accent right...

[Scott Gardner]

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 11:18:36 GMT, (No-one) wrote:

>
>
>My subs dont sound directional LOL
>
>
>
>
> My subs sound like they are
>>in the front also. When was the last time you went to a live concert
>>and heard the bass guitar or double bass in the back of the audience?
>>Why do you think many high-end car audio competitors were putting their
>>subs in the firewall or floor?
>>Yes it's possible to get reflections and reverb within a particular
>>hall, but to realistically hear that you need to have surround sound.
>>That is why car audio equipment companys are comming out with that type
>>systems.

Some of the instruments he's talking about (bass guitar, double-bass)
have high-enough frequencies in their range that you can still
localize them. In my experience, I can start to reliably localize
frequencies higher than 120-150Hz.

That's why, if I can fit good-sized midbass drivers in the kick
panels, I like to keep my subs in the back low-passed at around
70-80Hz. I'll set the high-pass for the midbass drivers at about
120Hz or so as a starting point, and rely on the natural cabin gain to
fill in the gap between the crossover points. That's just a starting
point, though - every car behaves a little differently.


--
Scott Gardner

"A conclusion is the place where you get tired of thinking." (Arthur Bloch)

[Scott Gardner]

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 15:01:39 -0500, (bob wald)
wrote:

>different speakers even with the same frez will not sound alike..like
>6x9s to 5 1/4s..so on.....
>and different brands......
>i've decided i must lower my advice.you dont even know the simplest
>things.by this one here..lol is this guy 1 of your lil gangs
>smartest?????

Which "guy" are you referring to? You're still too
ignorant/inconsiderate to quote in your posts.


--
Scott Gardner

"One of the more, um, entertaining aspects of riding is the astonishing
effortlessness under good conditions, the utter impossibility when
conditions exceed your skill envelope, and the abruptness of the transition. " (Bob Prohaska)

[Scott Gardner]

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 08:39:06 -0500, (bob wald)
wrote:

>the reason you put more power to the rears is to make it all come
>togeher at the same time better.or blend better.
>or it would be out of phase i guess...youd hear one part after the
>fronts play thier part of that same part of the song.even though were
>talking less than a secomd i guess.
>So to balnce out the farther distance to the rears.more power ''scotty
>damit!'' HA
>i can never get his scottish accent right...


/SARCASM ON

Yes, because everyone knows that louder sounds travel faster than
quieter sounds.

/SARCASM OFF

Dumbass - look at a basic physics textbook. The amplitude of a sound
has NO effect on how quickly it travels through the air. There's
nothing you can do to the relative volumes between the front and rear
speakers that's going to correct any kind of phase difference.


--
Scott Gardner

"I suppose they are vicious rascals, but it scarcely matters what they are. I'm after what they know." (Gibson-Sterling, The Difference Engine)

[Jethro]

bob wald Wrote:
> the reason you put more power to the rears is to make it all come
> togeher at the same time better.or blend better.
> or it would be out of phase i guess...youd hear one part after the
> fronts play thier part of that same part of the song.even though were
> talking less than a secomd i guess.
> So to balnce out the farther distance to the rears.more power
> ''scotty
> damit!'' HA
> i can never get his scottish accent right...

That is complete and utter BS there Bob. Adding more power to your rear
speakers will have zero effect on phase. A sound wave of a given
frequency will travel the same speed no matter what the amplitude of
the wave is. The only way to properly adjust phase is with careful
time-alignment, or with a signal processor that allows you to switch
phase 180 degrees (but even that isn't very precise). But even then,
you still have localized sound coming from behind you... which IMO is
just annoying.

15+ years ago when I was just getting into this hobby, I ran 6x9's for
rear speakers. As my system morphed and improved, it became apparent
that something needed to change, as the image was getting dragged to
the rear... so I just clipped the tweeter wires on the 6x9's... those
Pyle 6x9's made for some great midbasses, but they eventually got axed
once I got some decent component speakers up front.


--
Jethro

old school SQ guy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jethro's Profile: http://www.caraudioforum.com/vbb3/member.php?userid=18662
View this thread: http://www.caraudioforum.com/vbb3/showthread.php?t=226427
CarAudioForum.com - Usenet Gateway w/over one million posts online!

[bob wald]

scott you would hear the fronts first with the same power all
around..doh..thats why i put more to the rear.to hear them all
together....ok
and its only a part of 1second difference front to back anyways......

[bob wald]

my use of phase could be wrong here...but you saying more power does
nothing to change the sound from a speaker? hmmm i learn stuff
everyday...lol
not....

[bob wald]

oh my godd..jethro..pyle...lol
i wouldnt take any advice from you on any good sounding car stereo,,,lol
you can buy other brands as cheap as pyle like jensen/boss but sound
detter..lol
oh my god..you shouldnt admtted you had pyle..i lost all respect for you
on the subject of car audio.....
jsyo..lol

[MZ]

Bob, why are you still here?

And other posters, why are you still actually discussing audio with this
guy? You should be discussing which pathology afflicted him as a child to
lead to such significant brain damage.

"bob wald" > wrote in message
...
> oh my godd..jethro..pyle...lol
> i wouldnt take any advice from you on any good sounding car stereo,,,lol
> you can buy other brands as cheap as pyle like jensen/boss but sound
> detter..lol
> oh my god..you shouldnt admtted you had pyle..i lost all respect for you
> on the subject of car audio.....
> jsyo..lol
>

[bob wald]

jsyk...lol
i actually do have brain damage bub..motorcycle wreck......long
story.....

[Jethro]

bob wald Wrote:
> my use of phase could be wrong here...but you saying more power does
> nothing to change the sound from a speaker? hmmm i learn stuff
> everyday...lol
> not....

Your comprehension skills are lacking. Nobody said more power wouldn't
change the sound from a speaker, we said that more power will not make
the wave arrive at your ears any quicker than less power... it will
just be at a higher volume level. The amplitude of the wave (how loud
it is) has ZERO effect on how fast the wave travels. Whether you are
running 50 watts to a speaker or 2 watts to a speaker, the wave travels
the same speed.

You are obviously in over your head in this simple discussion. I
recommend doing a little reading before you attempt to make yourself
sound smarter than the rest of us. Go to the following site, it has
some great information about car audio... scroll down the sidebar on
the right side to see different topics:

www.bcae1.com


--
Jethro

old school SQ guy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jethro's Profile: http://www.caraudioforum.com/vbb3/member.php?userid=18662
View this thread: http://www.caraudioforum.com/vbb3/showthread.php?t=226459
CarAudioForum.com - Usenet Gateway w/over one million posts online!

[bob wald]

i said more power would make the rear speakers more noticable......
not faster.......
either way it makes a difference..i see what youre doing..trying to trip
me up. n make me look bad.about car audio.lol...youve done stuck out
like 20times.trying to trip me up.....
When will you give up??//

[Jethro]

bob wald Wrote:
> oh my godd..jethro..pyle...lol
> i wouldnt take any advice from you on any good sounding car
> stereo,,,lol
> you can buy other brands as cheap as pyle like jensen/boss but sound
> detter..lol
> oh my god..you shouldnt admtted you had pyle..i lost all respect for
> you
> on the subject of car audio.....
> jsyo..lol

Yes Bob, at one time I was igorant about car audio (as you are now). As
I mentioned, that was 15 years ago. I quickly learned from my mistakes
and moved on from Pyle. End of story.


--
Jethro

old school SQ guy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jethro's Profile: http://www.caraudioforum.com/vbb3/member.php?userid=18662
View this thread: http://www.caraudioforum.com/vbb3/showthread.php?t=226460
CarAudioForum.com - Usenet Gateway w/over one million posts online!

[Scott Gardner]

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 10:34:36 -0500, (bob wald)
wrote:

>my use of phase could be wrong here...but you saying more power does
>nothing to change the sound from a speaker? hmmm i learn stuff
>everyday...lol
>not....


Damn, you read as poorly as you write. I said that changing the
amplitude (volume) of a sound does not change its speed through the
air. So, turning up the rear speakers will NOT make the sound get to
you any sooner, and it will NOT correct any phase differences between
the front and rear speakers. (Both of which you claimed in your post)

Of course adding power changes the sound from a speaker - it makes it
louder.




--
Scott Gardner

"Besides that, Mrs. Kennedy, how was your trip to Dallas?"

[MZ]

> jsyk...lol
> i actually do have brain damage bub..motorcycle wreck......long
> story.....

Why am I not surprised?

[Scott Gardner]

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 10:30:48 -0500, (bob wald)
wrote:

>scott you would hear the fronts first with the same power all
>around..doh..thats why i put more to the rear.to hear them all
>together....ok
>and its only a part of 1second difference front to back anyways......

Here's a newsflash, cretin - unless you have some kind of time-delay
circuitry, you're going to hear the front speakers first NO MATTER
WHAT. It doesn't matter whether your front speakers are louder or
whether your rear speakers are louder. "Putting more to the rear"
will NOT change this one little bit. Not by one millisecond,
microsecond, or nanosecond.

Loud noises do NOT travel any faster or slower than quiet noises. The
very first chapter of any book on sound propagation will expain this
to you. The ONLY things that affect the speed of sound are the
temperature, atmospheric pressure, humidity, and CO2 concentration in
the air.

Notice that frequency and volume are not in that list. High-frequency
sounds travel just as fast as low-frequency sounds, and loud sounds
travel just as fast as slow sounds.

You talking about changing the time-of-arrival by adjusting the fader
is the stupidest/funniest thing I've heard on this group since
mmdir2000 accidentally let all the freon out of his car's air
conditioning system while trying to track down a bad ground in his
stereo system.

--
Scott Gardner

"Tis an ill wind that blows no minds."

[Scott Gardner]

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 11:15:18 -0500, (bob wald)
wrote:

>i said more power would make the rear speakers more noticable......
>not faster.......
>either way it makes a difference..i see what youre doing..trying to trip
>me up. n make me look bad.about car audio.lol...youve done stuck out
>like 20times.trying to trip me up.....
>When will you give up??//

We'll have to add "short-term memory" to the list of things you don't
have, along with writing skills and reading comprehension.

To refresh your memory, here's a quote from your earlier post:

"scott you would hear the fronts first with the same power all
around..doh..thats why i put more to the rear.to hear them all
together....ok"


Again, "putting more" to the rear is not going to do a damned thing to
help you "hear them all together". Without time-correction circuitry,
you're always going to hear the front speakers first, no matter how
much you fiddle with the fader.

And I hardly have to "try" to trip you up to make you look bad - as
long as we can keep you talking, you're a regular fountain of
foolishness - almost as much fun as mmdir200 and Spockie were.



--
Scott Gardner

"Eagles may soar, but weasels never get sucked into jet air intakes."

[bob wald]

ok...you are p.m.o bad.....the more power is to makee it able to travel
longer distance so you can hear it better.....if more power does nothing
to make the sound go farther then turn your stereo on 1.5only....
also some1 says i wrote more power makes music travel faster..please
post where i said that.....
it seems some people are so much in a hurry to shoot me down.theyre
lieing.....and not very good either.lol
''strike 24..lol''

[bob wald]

ok..i just figured out to explain to you....
get a 500rms-n-50rms to the same cars/speckers rear deck....
turn both on 2.....the 500rms will travel to you sooner meaning youll
hear it because the 50rms might not ever travel to where you can hear it
well.so more power does effect speed of travel!
if you wanna argue youll still be able to hear the 50rms then lower it
to 10rms...lol
sorry..you all wrong......

[MZ]

> ok..i just figured out to explain to you....
> get a 500rms-n-50rms to the same cars/speckers rear deck....
> turn both on 2.....

So now your whole premise is to get a bigger amplifier for the rears so that
you'll hear it when it's "on 2"?

> the 500rms will travel to you sooner

No it won't. Just because it's not audible does not mean the wave did not
arrive at your ear drum.

> meaning youll
> hear it because the 50rms might not ever travel to where you can hear it
> well.so more power does effect speed of travel!

Oops! You're an idiot.

The funniest part is that in the post before this you wrote "some1 says i
wrote more power makes music travel faster..please
post where i said that....." Well, you just said it above. MAKE UP YOUR
MIND.

> if you wanna argue youll still be able to hear the 50rms then lower it
> to 10rms...lol
> sorry..you all wrong......

If you can't hear 10 watts to a normal speaker in a car, then something is
seriously wrong with your hearing. You should be able to hear a fraction of
a watt in most full range speakers.

[bob wald]

my whole example was music travels faster with more watts over a distant
that the lower power will never travel to get to you...lol

[I. Care]

In article >,
says...
> ok..i just figured out to explain to you....
> get a 500rms-n-50rms to the same cars/speckers rear deck....
> turn both on 2.....the 500rms will travel to you sooner meaning youll
> hear it because the 50rms might not ever travel to where you can hear it
> well.so more power does effect speed of travel!
> if you wanna argue youll still be able to hear the 50rms then lower it
> to 10rms...lol
> sorry..you all wrong......
>
>
There is a great difference between how well you hear the sound
(amplitude) and the speed of the sound (about 332 meters/sec). You
might be able to hear a loud sound easier than a soft sound but not
"sooner", the speed, i.e. the time it takes to leave the source and
reach your ear, is the same. Unless you think you can prove that the
existing laws of physics are invalid. However, since you can't even use
proper grammer, spelling, or punctuation I guess you couldn't hold a
reasonable scientific discussion anyway.
--
I. Care
Address fake until the SPAM goes away ;-}

[ScottyK107]

whats the point of this post?


--
ScottyK107
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ScottyK107's Profile: http://www.caraudioforum.com/vbb3/member.php?userid=36765
View this thread: http://www.caraudioforum.com/vbb3/showthread.php?t=226388
CarAudioForum.com - Usenet Gateway w/over one million posts online!

[ScottyK107]

I had some legacy stuff haha


--
ScottyK107
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ScottyK107's Profile: http://www.caraudioforum.com/vbb3/member.php?userid=36765
View this thread: http://www.caraudioforum.com/vbb3/showthread.php?t=226460
CarAudioForum.com - Usenet Gateway w/over one million posts online!

[MZ]

> my whole example was music travels faster with more watts over a distant
> that the lower power will never travel to get to you...lol

And you were proven wrong, and admitted to being proven wrong when you said
"some1 says i wrote more power makes music travel faster..please post where
i said that....."

So not only have you been shown to be an imbecile, perhaps due in part to
the brain damage you said you sustained, but now it appears you're a liar as
well. Why not just slither back under the rock that you call home?

[bob wald]

mz..if 20watts will never travel 100ft. and 500watts will.you say more
watts doesnt effect speed..hmmmmmm
well i'm getting rid of my 1000s of watts of amps and buying just
50-100watts....since it will be heard 100ft away the same as
1000watts.as to what you said....
i wish i met yall be4 i bought all these amps.....
also guess your 100watts will be heard fine 1000ft away..since power
doesnt effect speed...

[Scott Gardner]

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 11:59:41 -0500, (bob wald)
wrote:

>ok..i just figured out to explain to you....
>get a 500rms-n-50rms to the same cars/speckers rear deck....
>turn both on 2.....the 500rms will travel to you sooner meaning youll
>hear it because the 50rms might not ever travel to where you can hear it
>well.so more power does effect speed of travel!
>if you wanna argue youll still be able to hear the 50rms then lower it
>to 10rms...lol
>sorry..you all wrong......

Nope, more power still doesn't affect speed-of-travel. It will make
it louder or softer when it reaches your ears, but it make it arrive
any sooner or later. Saying that "500rms will travel to you sooner"
is completely, totally, 100% could-not-be-more-wrong.


--
Scott Gardner

"A ship in the harbor is safe, but that's not what ships were made for."

[Scott Gardner]

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 12:22:33 -0500, (bob wald)
wrote:

>my whole example was music travels faster with more watts over a distant
>that the lower power will never travel to get to you...lol

Show me anywhere in the formula for the speed of sound where amplitude
makes a difference. Here's a hint - it doesn't.

Anyway, we're talking about distances inside a car, so even with only
one watt, the sound will still be able to travel the five feet or so
to your ears.

The only things you can do to truly make the music "travel faster" are
to change the temperature, atmospheric pressure, humidity, or
concentration of the various gases in the atmosphere.


--
Scott Gardner

"A child of five could understand this! Fetch me a child of five."

[MZ]

> mz..if 20watts will never travel 100ft.

If it doesn't travel 100 ft, then why are you assuming its speed is zero?
Is the speed of light shining off your bald head zero just because it's not
reaching Europe?

> and 500watts will.you say more
> watts doesnt effect speed..

500 watts from your house in Watts won't be heard in Greenland. Does that
mean its speed is zero?

>hmmmmmm
> well i'm getting rid of my 1000s of watts of amps and buying just
> 50-100watts....since it will be heard 100ft away the same as
> 1000watts.

Listen, imbecile. No one said there's not a difference in sound. The fact
that you keep bringing this up demonstrates that you're dumb as a rock. The
question here is the SPEED OF SOUND WAVE PROPAGATION.

> as to what you said....
> i wish i met yall be4 i bought all these amps.....
> also guess your 100watts will be heard fine 1000ft away..since power
> doesnt effect speed...

If you're asking if 100 watts delivered to a speaker can be heard 1000 ft
away, the answer is yes. It depends of course on the frequency,
directionality, and ambient conditions.

[Scott Gardner]

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 13:59:43 -0500, (bob wald)
wrote:

>mz..if 20watts will never travel 100ft. and 500watts will.you say more
>watts doesnt effect speed..hmmmmmm
>well i'm getting rid of my 1000s of watts of amps and buying just
>50-100watts....since it will be heard 100ft away the same as
>1000watts.as to what you said....
>i wish i met yall be4 i bought all these amps.....
>also guess your 100watts will be heard fine 1000ft away..since power
>doesnt effect speed...

Power doesn't affect speed. With less power, the sound will be weaker
when it arrives at a certain distance, but it won't get there any
faster or slower.

No one is claiming that more amplification won't make the music
louder, we're just pointing out that more amplification won't get it
there any faster.

Think of it this way. Do the quiet parts of a song take longer to get
to you than the loud parts? If a singer is singing loudly, with a
guitar playing softly in the background, does the singer's voice get
out-of-sync with the background instruments, even at a concert over a
distance of several hundred feet? Of course not. (Don't start in on
echoes or any **** like that, either - we're talking about
straight-line travel here).


--
Scott Gardner

"A billion hours ago, human life appeared on earth. A billion minutes ago, Christianity emerged. A billion Coca Colas ago was yesterday morning. " (from a Coca-Cola report)

[I. Care]

In article >,
says...
> mz..if 20watts will never travel 100ft. and 500watts will.you say more
> watts doesnt effect speed..hmmmmmm

You are correct.
Power does not effect speed. The speed of sound depends on several
factors but generally is about 332 meters/sec, power does not effect
speed, it does effect volume (SPL) produced when applied to a given
speaker/transducer. The greater the power the higher the SPL (Sound
Pressure Level).

<SNIP>

> also guess your 100watts will be heard fine 1000ft away..since power
> doesnt effect speed...
>
>

"Heard fine", relates to amplitude and frequency, not the speed of
sound.

Power does effect the distance and loudness at which it can be heard
depending on the sensitivity of your hearing. A completely deaf person
wouldn't hear it at all no matter the power. Does that mean the speed
of sound is Zero for the deaf person but something else for a hearing
person? I think not. How about an ultra sentive microphone and SPL
meter that can measure very low level sounds at 100 meters that *your
ears* cannot detect? Does that mean the speed of sound in air at sea
level is ZERO (against the laws of physics) because *you* can't hear it?
That's like covering your own eyes in a well lighted room full of people
and proclaiming "You can't see me", unless they are already blind.
Speed (meters/sec) and volume (SPL) and power (watts) are all different.
With a speaker of given specifications, power and volume do relate to
each other, speed does not.
--
I. Care
Address fake until the SPAM goes away ;-}

[bob wald]

i never said more power will make it faster....but will effect the music
quality.....or loudness...
YOU started the faster sound stuff......
strike 24-25.....

[bob wald]

so if power doesnt effect speed....you if 25rms will nevr go 100ft n
500rms will in seconds..how is that not effecting speed???

[bob wald]

anyways.. i would like you all to know i ordered sum 4gauge fancy power
wire..time to change out those cut up orange extenion cords i been
using......think it was streetwires
how much that stuff go for????

[Chris Mullins]

its not effecting speed because you never mentioned a change in speed, you
mentioned a change in distance.


"bob wald" > wrote in message
...
> so if power doesnt effect speed....you if 25rms will nevr go 100ft n
> 500rms will in seconds..how is that not effecting speed???
>

[Chris Mullins]

ah hell why not....

assuming we live in waldy world, and it actually does matter, who gives a
damn? your speakers throw sound for like 5' at most which is roughly 2m at
332m/s ....you're talking about a delay of roughly .006s

using bob wald logic a 35% increase would bring out speed of sound (lol) up
to 448m/s so the sound would be lagged .0044s your front speakers are maybe
1m away so they lag .003s and viola you've still got lag even with a 35%
increase in SPEED (bob wald power)

and still amazed by your stupidity....if you're standing 25m away from two
speakers, one playing a 35hz tone at 250w and one playing a 35hz tone at
500w does that mean that essentialy the rules of the speed of sound don't
apply? both should project the sound this far, but are you serious that you
think one of the sound waves is going to get there first?


"bob wald" > wrote in message
...
> so if power doesnt effect speed....you if 25rms will nevr go 100ft n
> 500rms will in seconds..how is that not effecting speed???
>

[Kirby]

"bob wald" > wrote in message
...
> anyways.. i would like you all to know i ordered sum 4gauge fancy power
> wire..

I never knew you could tie 4 gauge into your fuse box..

[MZ]

> i never said more power will make it faster....but will effect the music
> quality.....or loudness...
> YOU started the faster sound stuff......

Liar!

Bob Wald wrote: "my whole example was music travels faster with more watts"

[I. Care]

In article >,
says...
> so if power doesnt effect speed....you if 25rms will nevr go 100ft n
> 500rms will in seconds..how is that not effecting speed???
>
>

Yes it will go, it is energy, it just might not be loud enough for you
to hear it. There is still energy there, it travels at 322 m/sec. Ever
hear of the inverse square law?

From:
http://phya.yonsei.ac.kr/~phylab/board/exp_ref/upfile/pasco/P60_INV2.pdf

"One of the most common natural laws is the inverse square law. As one
famous scientist put it, "the inverse square law is characteristic of
anything which starts out from a point source and travels in straight
lines without getting lost." Light and sound intensity both behave
according to an inverse square law when they spread out from a point
source. Your intuition says that as you move away from a point source of
light like a light bulb, the light intensity becomes smaller as the
distance from the bulb becomes larger . The same is true for sound
intensity as you move away from a small radio speaker. What may not be
as obvious is that if you move twice as far from either of these
sources, the intensity becomes one fourth as great, not half as great.
In a similar way, if you are at the back of an auditorium listening to
music and you decide to move three times closer, the sound intensity
becomes nine times greater. This is why the law is called the inverse
square law."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/acoustic/invsqs.html#c1


--
I. Care
Address fake until the SPAM goes away ;-}

[I. Care]

In article <sJFYe.248150$Hk.159556@pd7tw1no>,
says...
>
> "bob wald" > wrote in message
> ...
> > anyways.. i would like you all to know i ordered sum 4gauge fancy power
> > wire..
>
> I never knew you could tie 4 gauge into your fuse box..
>
>
>
Oh, more fun... Wire is wire, use the guage of wire required to handle
the current you need. Wonder if he bought solid gold wire :-)

He should ask about the effect of wire on his system over in
rec.audio.high-end or rec.audio.tech.
--
I. Care
Address fake until the SPAM goes away ;-}

[bob wald]

oh i found a visonik 6x9 about the same specs as that kicker.alot
cheaper.hmmmmm?????
i guess visonik is as good as kicker.....

[Kirby]

"bob wald" > wrote in message
...
> oh i found a visonik 6x9 about the same specs as that kicker.alot
> cheaper.hmmmmm?????
> i guess visonik is as good as kicker.....

Well if that's the stuff you like, use that.. Nobody's stopping you. As for
the brands, I probably wouldn't buy either of the brands. Plain and simple,
I dont like either of them. And I also suspect a flame fest coming on.

[bob wald]

you dont like either??? i'm sorry its not sony......
actually i think the sony 6x9 costs more than either of the 2 i
listed...lol

[I. Care]

In article >,
says...
> you dont like either??? i'm sorry its not sony......
> actually i think the sony 6x9 costs more than either of the 2 i
> listed...lol
>
>
Since price seems to be about your only criteria, why don't you just go
to RS and buy a $15 set of cheap paper cone speakers?
--
I. Care
Address fake until the SPAM goes away ;-}

[Kirby]

If I were to go to a 6x9, more than likely it would be a set of Infinity's
or Boston Acoustics.

"bob wald" > wrote in message
...
> you dont like either??? i'm sorry its not sony......
> actually i think the sony 6x9 costs more than either of the 2 i
> listed...lol
>

[bob wald]

icare..since you have trouble reading.ill say again..(its the same
speaker)but different companies.....but the visonik is a 4way the kicker
coaxial.and the visonik has 2yr warrenty not 1yr..

[bob wald]

myfirst..yes the speed of light from anything that cannot reach it
target is 0.
same with sound.
power does effect speed over distance.

[Scott Gardner]

On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 16:53:28 -0500, (bob wald)
wrote:

>myfirst..yes the speed of light from anything that cannot reach it
>target is 0.
>same with sound.
>power does effect speed over distance.

What if you can't hear a sound, but someone with better hearing
standing right next to you can hear it? Is the speed of sound still
zero then?

Sounds waves don't behave like projectiles - they don't slow down and
eventually stop as they get weaker.
--
Scott Gardner

"Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society." --Mark Twain

[bob wald]

what???? i said the sound never reaches you.not you dont hear it.....
for sound to exist you must hear it....

[MZ]

> myfirst..yes the speed of light from anything that cannot reach it
> target is 0.

No, the speed of light is nonzero. If there aren't any photons available to
reach a target, then by definition it's not light so it can't have speed.

> same with sound.

The amplitude of sound decays to the point at which there is no sound (eg.
no one will hear your voice 100 miles away because the sound has died out -
not because it's slowed to zero; although, I imagine the hot air coming out
of your mouth is so significant that it causes local atmospheric changes
that may encompass a radius that large).

> power does effect speed over distance.

That's not what you said earlier. Changed your mind?

[Kirby]

Dont you think that having two extra speakers is making up for something?


"bob wald" > wrote in message
...
> icare..since you have trouble reading.ill say again..(its the same
> speaker)but different companies.....but the visonik is a 4way the kicker
> coaxial.and the visonik has 2yr warrenty not 1yr..
>

[Scott Gardner]

On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 18:58:39 -0500, (bob wald)
wrote:

>what???? i said the sound never reaches you.not you dont hear it.....
>for sound to exist you must hear it....

Sound waves continue to travel through the air, even after they've
become too faint for you to hear. Increasing the volume may make them
louder when they get to you, but they won't get to you any faster.
--
Scott Gardner

"At first there was nothing. Then God said 'Let there be light!' Then there was still nothing. But you could see it."

[bob wald]

i have found the visonik (v693) insanely cheap at american car
audio.....
my oly concern is. i heard talk that you should just have bass coming
from the rear,not 3 or 4way speakers.something about you lose treble
coming at you from behind.....i dont know

[I. Care]

In article >, gardners14
@cox.net says...
> On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 18:58:39 -0500, (bob wald)
> wrote:
>
> >what???? i said the sound never reaches you.not you dont hear it.....
> >for sound to exist you must hear it....
>
> Sound waves continue to travel through the air, even after they've
> become too faint for you to hear. Increasing the volume may make them
> louder when they get to you, but they won't get to you any faster.
>
This has been explained to him several times, Including the laws of
physics regarding the speed of sound. He doesn't appear to understand
he can't break/violate the laws of physics, and what the difference
between speed and volume is.

He just wants to be a TROLL and argue with anyone that has
information/opinion different than his, he's not interested in educating
himself.
--
I. Care
Address fake until the SPAM goes away ;-}

[Scott Gardner]

On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 07:46:30 -0500, (bob wald)
wrote:

>i have found the visonik (v693) insanely cheap at american car
>audio.....
>my oly concern is. i heard talk that you should just have bass coming
>from the rear,not 3 or 4way speakers.something about you lose treble
>coming at you from behind.....i dont know

It really just depends on what you want your car to sound like. Some
people like to have a solidly-anchored "front stage", with only a
little bit of rear fill to "flesh out" the sound. Others like to hear
everything coming from everywhere. It's easier to tell where
high-frequency sounds are coming from, so having tweeters in the rear
and feeding them with a lot of power can sometimes "pull" the
soundstage more towards the middle or the rear of the car.

For my tastes, I usually go with two- or three-way component speaker
sets in the front, some 5-1/4" or 6-1/2" coaxials in the rear deck,
depending on what will fit, and then one or two 12" subs in the trunk,
crossed-over fairly low (around 60-80 Hz).

I'll give 75-100W to each of the front component sets, 50W or so to
the rear speakers, and then about 300-400W to the sub(s). If I
switched to the newer "Class D" amps for the subs, I'd probably feed
them a lot more power, since the digital-switching amps are so much
cheaper per watt and so much more efficient than my older Class AB
amps. But I've got several of the old Precision Power "Art Series"
amps that I like a lot, so I'll probably hold onto them for a long
time.


--
Scott Gardner

"If the pilot screws up, the pilot dies. If Air Traffic Control screws up, the pilot dies."

[bob wald]

i dont understand why do you care how fast sound gets to you if you cant
hear it???
anywys i'm done answering you about how fast sounds gets to you.you cant
hear....

[bob wald]

ok i have decided to go with the cheaper visonik.4way 6x9s, $39.Since
some say the rear speakers are unimportant.i wont spend much on them.
i do wish i could go these visoniks, 2front,2rear.

[I. Care]

In article >,
says...
> i dont understand why do you care how fast sound gets to you if you cant
> hear it???
> anywys i'm done answering you about how fast sounds gets to you.you cant
> hear....
>
>
Because in one of your later posts you said the sound travels faster
with more watts. It does NOT. The speed of sound does not change with
power, the volume changes with power, not the time (speed over distance)
it gets to your ears. Learn some 5th grade physics.

Your post->

"Subject: Re: kicker ks69
From: bob wald >
Newsgroups: rec.audio.car

my whole example was music travels faster with more watts...."
--
I. Care
Address fake until the SPAM goes away ;-}

[bob wald]

what i said was after less power stops sending music.more power will go
further. making it faster..its a trick answer....
i thought you would of known that..

[Chris Mullins]

sooo since a 4cyl car will go further on 1 gallon gas, that means that it is
faster than a car with a pratt whitney turbojet strapped to it. holy lord
bob, you're a full blooded idiot

hey bob...do you know anything??? (its a trick answer too)


"bob wald" > wrote in message
...
> what i said was after less power stops sending music.more power will go
> further. making it faster..its a trick answer....
> i thought you would of known that..
>

[Kirby]

I'll try to put this in perspective for you. Lets say you had a parabolic
microphone, and if you dont know what that is, it is a microphone that can
pick up sound from FAR away. So lets say you're standing 100yards from an
object that is making noise. The problem is, you can no longer hear it after
you're 50 yards away. So according to what you're saying, there would be NO
noise at 100 yards. Using the microphone you can hear the noise from 100
feet. Now, you tell me if the sound still exists or not.
"bob wald" > wrote in message
...
> i dont understand why do you care how fast sound gets to you if you cant
> hear it???
> anywys i'm done answering you about how fast sounds gets to you.you cant
> hear....
>

[I. Care]

In article >,
says...
> what i said was after less power stops sending music.more power will go
> further. making it faster..its a trick answer....
> i thought you would of known that..
>
>
It's not a trick answer; it's an uninformed wrong answer.

Your high power amp sends audio from your speakers at 332m/s, that's a
measurement of speed by the way. My low power amp sends audio from my
speakers at 332m/s. Which sound wave is faster?

Remember, it's "a trick answer".

As Scotty said "Cap'n I cana change the laws of physics." They are
equally as fast, neither is faster. Fast=speed=332m/s for sound. Do
you think 60mph on the highway is faster for your 300hp car than 60mph
for my 150hp car? 60mph=60mph.

Now to practical audio matters.

Assuming no losses in air sound goes on forever, decreasing in intensity
following the inverse square law already explained to you with links to
authority pages. Therefore the limiting factor is the sensitivity of an
individuals ears or measuring instruments to sound volume.

So what does more power into the same speaker under the same conditions
give you, assuming the speaker has a linear power curve and can handle
the power applied?

It starts out with a higher volume (SPL) that travels at the same speed
as any other sound in air (332m/s), and decays following the same
inverse square law; but, it is audible for a greater distance not
because it's faster, but because it's louder and takes a longer distance
to decay to your threshold of hearing.

Now assume you are not sitting in the center of your car, most people
don't, and the rear speakers are further away from you than the front
speakers. I did see a car built special for IASCA World Finals where
the driver sat in the center. Yes, to get the same loudness/volume
(SPL) at your ears from rear speakers identical to your front speakers
you would need more power. This is usually done with your fader
control. You can thus feel like you are surrounded in sound instead of
hearing front staging like you do at a live concert.

However, because the rear speakers are further away, the length of time
it takes the same sound starting at the same instant in time from both
your front and rear speakers to reach your ears is increased for the
rear speakers. If your front speakers are 1m away it would take 0.0030s
(1/332s) that's 3ms to reach your ears. If your rear speakers are 2m
away (2X as far) it would take 0.0060s (2/332s) that's 6ms to reach your
ears. That is why for very critical listening where you might want the
front and rear sounds reaching your ear at exactly the same TIME you
employ time alignment methods. That is you introduce a delay in your
closer speakers to compensate for the differences in distance, a 3ms
delay in this case. This also applies for differences between left and
right speaker distances. So if your right rear speaker was the farthest
away you would have delay times for left front, right front, center
channel,right rear and all of those tweeters if they are different
distances than your mid range speakers. Note that some high-end car
audio systems come with that adjustment ability built-in, mine did.

--
I. Care
Address fake until the SPAM goes away ;-}

[bob wald]

let me put this more simply. ive said 50 times by agreeing with
you...power does not make sound faster.i've said that lots of times.but
in my lil example if underpowered sound cant reach you the more power
does make it faster for the last 10feet. u n d e r s t a n d??????

[bob wald]

so you all are saying if youre in a race on a track.but run out of
gas.but was faster the first 20laps you win.even thou the last few laps
you didnt finish? you think i was faster the first part of the race.so
i'm faster the last part?

[Chris Mullins]

bob i've said it before and i'll say it again, you ignorance is amazing.


"bob wald" > wrote in message
...
> let me put this more simply. ive said 50 times by agreeing with
> you...power does not make sound faster.i've said that lots of times.but
> in my lil example if underpowered sound cant reach you the more power
> does make it faster for the last 10feet. u n d e r s t a n d??????
>

[MZ]

> bob i've said it before and i'll say it again, you ignorance is amazing.

I like how he keeps changing his tune.

9/22, 09:39AM, Bob writes: "the reason you put more power to the rears is to
make it all come togeher at the same time better.or blend better. or it
would be out of phase i guess."
9/22, 12:15PM, Bob writes: "i said more power would make the rear speakers
more noticable......not faster......."
9/22, 12:51PM, Bob writes: "also some1 says i wrote more power makes music
travel faster..please post where i said that....."
9/22, 12:59PM, Bob writes: "so more power does effect speed of travel!"
9/22, 04:33PM, Bob writes: "i never said more power will make it faster...."
9/24, 05:53PM, Bob writes: "power does effect speed over distance."
9/26, 08:10AM, Bob writes: "power does not make sound faster.i've said that
lots of times."

He's not arguing with us. He's arguing with himself. Let him keep going.
I want to see who wins.

[I. Care]

In article >,
says...
> let me put this more simply. ive said 50 times by agreeing with
> you...power does not make sound faster.i've said that lots of times.but
> in my lil example if underpowered sound cant reach you the more power
> does make it faster for the last 10feet. u n d e r s t a n d??????
>
>
HERE WE HAVE IT AGAIN. Read your statements above, you can read can't
you? Appears my earlier comments about your poor communication skills,
grammar, spelling, and punctuation were right on the mark.

Let me help by quoting your words in this post.

"ive said 50 times by agreeing with
you...power does not make sound faster."

--I agree, power does not make sound faster.--

"if underpowered sound cant reach you the more power
does make it faster for the last 10feet."

--Here you go again stating power makes sound faster the last 10 feet.--

Power *never* makes it FASTER it makes it LOUDER. You, being quite the
car audio expert do know the difference between loudness/volume/sound
pressure level (SPL) and speed don't you?

Even correcting your error in the last quote by stating it is louder for
the last 10 feet is only partially correct. It is louder from the first
and stays louder forever.

Try this simple experiment. Start with 10watts, divide the number 10 by
2, divide that resulting answer by 2, continue dividing each resulting
answer by 2 until you reach the result of 0. You do know how to divide
by 2 don't you? Do it by hand on paper, calculators lie.

Don't post back here until you can tell everyone how many times you had
to divide by 2 to reach 0.


--
I. Care
Address fake until the SPAM goes away ;-}

[MZ]

Why bother? He's mildly retarded. He practically admitted it himself when
he brought up the fact that he sustained brain damage in an accident.

"I. Care" > wrote in message
.net...
> In article >,
> says...
> > let me put this more simply. ive said 50 times by agreeing with
> > you...power does not make sound faster.i've said that lots of times.but
> > in my lil example if underpowered sound cant reach you the more power
> > does make it faster for the last 10feet. u n d e r s t a n d??????
> >
> >
> HERE WE HAVE IT AGAIN. Read your statements above, you can read can't
> you? Appears my earlier comments about your poor communication skills,
> grammar, spelling, and punctuation were right on the mark.
>
> Let me help by quoting your words in this post.
>
> "ive said 50 times by agreeing with
> you...power does not make sound faster."
>
> --I agree, power does not make sound faster.--
>
> "if underpowered sound cant reach you the more power
> does make it faster for the last 10feet."
>
> --Here you go again stating power makes sound faster the last 10 feet.--
>
> Power *never* makes it FASTER it makes it LOUDER. You, being quite the
> car audio expert do know the difference between loudness/volume/sound
> pressure level (SPL) and speed don't you?
>
> Even correcting your error in the last quote by stating it is louder for
> the last 10 feet is only partially correct. It is louder from the first
> and stays louder forever.
>
> Try this simple experiment. Start with 10watts, divide the number 10 by
> 2, divide that resulting answer by 2, continue dividing each resulting
> answer by 2 until you reach the result of 0. You do know how to divide
> by 2 don't you? Do it by hand on paper, calculators lie.
>
> Don't post back here until you can tell everyone how many times you had
> to divide by 2 to reach 0.
>
>
> --
> I. Care
> Address fake until the SPAM goes away ;-}

[bob wald]

mostly brain damage usually effects the left side as i am. meaning the
right side of the brain tends to get hurt more.its called closed head
injury......
anyways... if i were you id be embarrassed a brain damaged guy knows
more than you...lol
HA thats funny bub....
anyhow ive been busy trying to get companies i deal with to price match
that dirt cheap visonik price i found.it aint ez.
let me help yu out..theres 2 places only i buy from.....1.
audiowarehouseexpress 2. internetsoundsolutions
HAhahaHAhAHahAHahA...GOOD LUCK

[MZ]

> mostly brain damage usually effects the left side as i am. meaning the
> right side of the brain tends to get hurt more.

Yeah, if you fall on the right side of your head.

[MZ]

> mostly brain damage usually effects the left side as i am. meaning the
> right side of the brain tends to get hurt more.its called closed head
> injury......
> anyways... if i were you id be embarrassed a brain damaged guy knows
> more than you...lol
> HA thats funny bub....

Besides, I'm a bit surprised it was the right hemisphere you injured and not
the left. Your clear lack of reading comprehension smacks of some form of
Wernicke's aphasia.

[bob wald]

YOU are the 1 complaining you cant understand what you read.not me.ok
i typed this slow just for you.

[MZ]

> YOU are the 1 complaining you cant understand what you read.not me.ok
> i typed this slow just for you.

If you typed in larger font it would have been faster, right?

[Chris Mullins]

omg i think i love you now, and owe you a beer for that one

btw bob, i type at over 100wpm when i try and usually less than 5 mistakes
per page, are you saying that you type so fast you can get 5 mistakes per
sentence? (if you would even call those things sentences)

"MZ" > wrote in message
...
>> YOU are the 1 complaining you cant understand what you read.not me.ok
>> i typed this slow just for you.
>
> If you typed in larger font it would have been faster, right?
>
>

[Kirby]

"bob wald" > wrote in message
...
> let me put this more simply. ive said 50 times by agreeing with
> you...power does not make sound faster.i've said that lots of times.but
> in my lil example if underpowered sound cant reach you the more power
> does make it faster for the last 10feet. u n d e r s t a n d??????

Well as I said in my example, this "underpowered sound" does in fact reach
you, but it's too quiet for you to hear. Another example is a person with a
hearing disorder. Some people may not hear what someone else is saying, but
the person beside them hears perfectly. So does that mean there isn't any
sound, because one person can't hear it?

[t72pwrd]

Why not turn your soundcard down and type at the same rate? It'd do the
same thing wouldn't it?

-Nick


"bob wald" > wrote in message
...
> YOU are the 1 complaining you cant understand what you read.not me.ok
> i typed this slow just for you.
>

[bob wald]

mz..in case you are retarded..i told you i have a closed head
injury..effecting my left side...my arm mostly..so i'm typing with 1
hand..dohhhhhh
idiot.......

[bob wald]

well nick i dont see a sound card on my webtv.....my last post was to
chris i think if i remember his name right.

[t72pwrd]

Oh Lord, I forgot you were on WebTV. Thank you for reminding me of the fact
that you don't know what a computer is. The soundcard volume on a computer
sort of equates to the volume button on a TV, turn the TV down and your
posts will propagate faster. You do understand the concept of post
propagation since you're posting in a newsgroup, I assume?


-Nick

"bob wald" > wrote in message
...
> well nick i dont see a sound card on my webtv.....my last post was to
> chris i think if i remember his name right.
>

[bob wald]

i never have the sound up,my tv doesnt talk to me.i read it.ty

[bob wald]

actually i bought a computer yrs ago....its twice as hard to use a
computer after you get use to webtv...ty

[t72pwrd]

I'll just BET it is!

-Nick

"bob wald" > wrote in message
...
> actually i bought a computer yrs ago....its twice as hard to use a
> computer after you get use to webtv...ty
>