Hi all,

I just had a decent, but not great, system installed yesterday by a buddy,
and he put my sub box in my trunk facing the back. Is this correct? I
would think that the sub should be facing the occupants for the most drive.

D

"Doobie-Doo" wrote in message
. ca...
Hi all,

I just had a decent, but not great, system installed yesterday by a buddy,
and he put my sub box in my trunk facing the back. Is this correct? I
would think that the sub should be facing the occupants for the most
drive.

D



He may have it set up the best way for your car. Look at this:

http://www.teamrocs.com/technical/pages/aiming.htm


jp

says...

He may have it set up the best way for your car. Look at this:

http://www.teamrocs.com/technical/pages/aiming.htm

Very nice article indeed. Wish I had those toys to make my adjustments.
Sure would speed up the process.

your welcome!!
Eddie Runner
http://www.teamrocs.com

Psych-O-Delic Voodoo Thunder Pig wrote:

"Mike Sims" wrote in message
...
says...

He may have it set up the best way for your car. Look at this:

http://www.teamrocs.com/technical/pages/aiming.htm

Very nice article indeed. Wish I had those toys to make my adjustments.
Sure would speed up the process.


That guy has a number of very informative articles on his site. Nice of
him to share the benefit of his experience!

jp

I must insert that I came in here about a year ago with a question about why
my sub sounded like crap in my new car unless the trunk was open. Eddie
Runner took the time to answer my question and also refer me to his
excellent site and it solved my problem completely. My sub box now sits
facing the rear of the car, backed up against the back of the rear seats
with a little extra space for amp breathing room. If I move it even about 6
inches towards the rear of the car, the standing waves kill the bass.

Plus I'm a fellow 4 wheeler, so he gets points for that, too. )

~daxe


----- Original Message -----
From: "Eddie Runner"
Newsgroups: rec.audio.car
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 12:36 PM
Subject: Subwoofer direction


your welcome!!
Eddie Runner
http://www.teamrocs.com

Psych-O-Delic Voodoo Thunder Pig wrote:

"Mike Sims" wrote in message
...
says...

He may have it set up the best way for your car. Look at this:

http://www.teamrocs.com/technical/pages/aiming.htm

Very nice article indeed. Wish I had those toys to make my
adjustments.
Sure would speed up the process.


That guy has a number of very informative articles on his site. Nice
of
him to share the benefit of his experience!

jp

"daxe" wrote:




I must insert that I came in here about a year ago with a question about why
my sub sounded like crap in my new car unless the trunk was open. Eddie
Runner took the time to answer my question and also refer me to his
excellent site and it solved my problem completely. My sub box now sits
facing the rear of the car, backed up against the back of the rear seats
with a little extra space for amp breathing room. If I move it even about 6
inches towards the rear of the car, the standing waves kill the bass.

Plus I'm a fellow 4 wheeler, so he gets points for that, too. )

~daxe

Actually the standing wave region in a car occurs above the 'bass' range. In a
living room the standing wave region encompasses roughly the 25-30 to 300 Hz
range. Below the frequency of the longest room dimension (26 Hz for a 22 ft
long room, for example) the speaker displacement directly pressurizes the space
and above approx 300 Hz the wavelengths are short enough that they become
statistically dense.

In a smaller space, such as a car, every thing is shifted up an octave or so.
Fort example in a Corvette, CRX, Integra and cars of similar interior volume
the lowest axial mode occurs at 60 Hz and the standing wave region is 60 to 600
Hz, give or take.

Below 60 Hz then, SPL is reinforced by 12 dB per octave as frequency falls.
Because this is a pressure phenomenon speaker location is irrrelevant below 60
Hz. Moving the woofer back and forth makes no difference; nor does cone
direction.

With large cars the effect may start as low as 40 Hz but 50 Hz is a good rule
of thumb.

It is true that sound above the lowest axial mode will change with location but
we should be careful to attribute effects to the proper cause. It is also true
that opening a window or trunk will have cavity-tuning effects but this has
nothing to do with standing waves at bass frequencies.

What does all of this mean in terms of what my ears detect?

I have noticed that with a sub in my car, I can definitely tell that the
bass is coming from the rear of the car. If I cross over at a lower
frequency, then the remaining frequencies get transferred to my 6.5"
woofers, which causes them to sound obviously overworked at high
volumes. It seems impossible to get a decent balance.

Comments?

says...
"daxe" wrote:




I must insert that I came in here about a year ago with a question about why
my sub sounded like crap in my new car unless the trunk was open. Eddie
Runner took the time to answer my question and also refer me to his
excellent site and it solved my problem completely. My sub box now sits
facing the rear of the car, backed up against the back of the rear seats
with a little extra space for amp breathing room. If I move it even about 6
inches towards the rear of the car, the standing waves kill the bass.

Plus I'm a fellow 4 wheeler, so he gets points for that, too. )

~daxe

Actually the standing wave region in a car occurs above the 'bass' range. In a
living room the standing wave region encompasses roughly the 25-30 to 300 Hz
range. Below the frequency of the longest room dimension (26 Hz for a 22 ft
long room, for example) the speaker displacement directly pressurizes the space
and above approx 300 Hz the wavelengths are short enough that they become
statistically dense.

In a smaller space, such as a car, every thing is shifted up an octave or so.
Fort example in a Corvette, CRX, Integra and cars of similar interior volume
the lowest axial mode occurs at 60 Hz and the standing wave region is 60 to 600
Hz, give or take.

Below 60 Hz then, SPL is reinforced by 12 dB per octave as frequency falls.
Because this is a pressure phenomenon speaker location is irrrelevant below 60
Hz. Moving the woofer back and forth makes no difference; nor does cone
direction.

With large cars the effect may start as low as 40 Hz but 50 Hz is a good rule
of thumb.

It is true that sound above the lowest axial mode will change with location but
we should be careful to attribute effects to the proper cause. It is also true
that opening a window or trunk will have cavity-tuning effects but this has
nothing to do with standing waves at bass frequencies.

"daxe"


"Nousaine" wrote in message
...

speaker location is irrrelevant below 60
Hz. Moving the woofer back and forth makes no difference; nor does cone
direction.

I appreciate your gobbledygook, but it wouldnt have solved my problem when I
had it. Keep that in mind when "we should be careful to attribute effects to
the proper cause." Explaining why a successful solution hasn't actually
worked has pretty limited value, it seems.

OK..so its not standing waves...as long as it sounds better, I dont care
what the name of the reason is. And your assertion that changing the
position of the speaker enclosure doesnt make a difference is wrong,
regardless of what your empirical knowledge suggests. My ears can tell the
difference and that's the only test equipment that matters. It was hardly a
subtle change, so it's not my imagination.

~daxe

Well it may be standing waves but NOT at low frequencies. Any effects you hear
are working at frequencies above 60 Hz. So as long as you understand this we
remain on the same page and can apply this to the next system as well.

you could use a MID BASS....

Most folks dont have all that room though and just adjust the woofer/component
ratio till it gets the best it can be.....

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

Mike Sims wrote:

What does all of this mean in terms of what my ears detect?

I have noticed that with a sub in my car, I can definitely tell that the
bass is coming from the rear of the car. If I cross over at a lower
frequency, then the remaining frequencies get transferred to my 6.5"
woofers, which causes them to sound obviously overworked at high
volumes. It seems impossible to get a decent balance.

Comments?

Hi ya Daxe...
Tom wrote an article in a car stereo magazine a few years ago
that claims moving the box around in a car DOESNT MATTER
the direction the woofers face DOESNT MATTER
and that there are no BASS standing waves in a car and alot of
other things that most of us know are UNTRUE....

At the time of the article the TeamROCS guys did an expose article
online debunking the article by Tom Nousaine with lots of meters
test equiment and pictures, I dont know if its still on the teamrocs website
or not......

I read Toms article and noticed his TEST CAR WAS A CORVETTE!
ha ha ha Not much area to move a box around in that little car at all so
I guess thats why his results were flawed...

I know Tom is sensitive to this issue so I try to avoid what is so natural
to me.. (BUSTING IN TELLING HIM HE IS A LIAR... ha ha ha)

So I will just let you know the history of his statements.... ;-)

He ignores my article http://www.installer.com/tech/aiming.html
and wont have a decent conversation about why standing waves
CAN and DO occur in a car in the bass region....

Oh well...

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


daxe wrote:

"Nousaine" wrote in message
...

speaker location is irrrelevant below 60
Hz. Moving the woofer back and forth makes no difference; nor does cone
direction.

I appreciate your gobbledygook, but it wouldnt have solved my problem when I
had it. Keep that in mind when "we should be careful to attribute effects to
the proper cause." Explaining why a successful solution hasn't actually
worked has pretty limited value, it seems.

OK..so its not standing waves...as long as it sounds better, I dont care
what the name of the reason is. And your assertion that changing the
position of the speaker enclosure doesnt make a difference is wrong,
regardless of what your empirical knowledge suggests. My ears can tell the
difference and that's the only test equipment that matters. It was hardly a
subtle change, so it's not my imagination.

~daxe

Eddie Runner wrote:

Hi ya Daxe...
Tom wrote an article in a car stereo magazine a few years ago
that claims moving the box around in a car DOESNT MATTER
the direction the woofers face DOESNT MATTER
and that there are no BASS standing waves in a car and alot of
other things that most of us know are UNTRUE....

So what is true Eddie? Your little cartoons drawings or real time-based
acoustical measurements made with real woofers in real cars.

At the time of the article the TeamROCS guys did an expose article
online debunking the article by Tom Nousaine with lots of meters
test equiment and pictures, I dont know if its still on the teamrocs website
or not......

I read Toms article and noticed his TEST CAR WAS A CORVETTE!
ha ha ha Not much area to move a box around in that little car at all so
I guess thats why his results were flawed...

Published results were prior to Corvette time Eddie. But since 1988 I've used a
Saab 99, Volvo 240 wagon, Taurus, Areostar, Integra, CRX, Camaro Z28,
Bonneville, X-Cab Chevie Pick-up and 3 different Corvettes for woofer
evaluations.


I know Tom is sensitive to this issue so I try to avoid what is so natural
to me.. (BUSTING IN TELLING HIM HE IS A LIAR... ha ha ha)

So I will just let you know the history of his statements.... ;-)

He ignores my article http://www.installer.com/tech/aiming.html
and wont have a decent conversation about why standing waves
CAN and DO occur in a car in the bass region....

I've been to your site Eddie and your anaysis is so amateur its hard not to
laugh.



Oh well...

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

Oh well, indeed ....




daxe wrote:

"Nousaine" wrote in message
...

speaker location is irrrelevant below 60
Hz. Moving the woofer back and forth makes no difference; nor does cone
direction.

I appreciate your gobbledygook, but it wouldnt have solved my problem when
I
had it. Keep that in mind when "we should be careful to attribute effects
to
the proper cause." Explaining why a successful solution hasn't actually
worked has pretty limited value, it seems.

OK..so its not standing waves...as long as it sounds better, I dont care
what the name of the reason is. And your assertion that changing the
position of the speaker enclosure doesnt make a difference is wrong,
regardless of what your empirical knowledge suggests. My ears can tell the
difference and that's the only test equipment that matters. It was hardly
a
subtle change, so it's not my imagination.

~daxe

Nousaine wrote:

Eddie Runner wrote:

Hi ya Daxe...
Tom wrote an article in a car stereo magazine a few years ago
that claims moving the box around in a car DOESNT MATTER
the direction the woofers face DOESNT MATTER
and that there are no BASS standing waves in a car and alot of
other things that most of us know are UNTRUE....

So what is true Eddie? Your little cartoons drawings or real time-based
acoustical measurements made with real woofers in real cars.

the little CARTOONS are so that ANYONE can understand it... I have
always hated the moron technical guys that cant speak in small words...
I think someone that truely understands something can say it in small words
as well as big words.... IMO building a tech page for the average car
audio buff would not be productive if we used all the big words that
most of them wouldnt understand... I have gone to great pains to have my
pages understood by ANYONE!

If you dont like em you have a right to write your own, or even criticize mine...
Thats why I publish things anyway, to INVITE criticizm!!
Same reason scientists publish papers, to invite critisizm...
UNLIKE YOU,
you make this **** up so the magazines can PAY YOU!! ha ha ha
Accuracy must not mattter at all... ha ha
And CRITICISM! WHOA!
You get so uptite when we talk about this subject I can hear your ASS PUCKER
all the way down here in TEXAS! ha ha ha

If you dont believe my web page on the subject you may feel free to tell
us YOUR THEORY on why all these kids woofer boxes sound best when
aimed backwards!!!

OH THATS RIGHT!
You say it doesnt even do that at all.... ha ha ha!
No need for you to explain the phenomenon case IT DOESNT HAPPEN!
ha ha ha

Every kid on here knows your full of ****!
ha ha

At the time of the article the TeamROCS guys did an expose article
online debunking the article by Tom Nousaine with lots of meters
test equiment and pictures, I dont know if its still on the teamrocs website
or not......

I read Toms article and noticed his TEST CAR WAS A CORVETTE!
ha ha ha Not much area to move a box around in that little car at all so
I guess thats why his results were flawed...

Published results were prior to Corvette time Eddie. But since 1988 I've used a
Saab 99, Volvo 240 wagon, Taurus, Areostar, Integra, CRX, Camaro Z28,
Bonneville, X-Cab Chevie Pick-up and 3 different Corvettes for woofer
evaluations.

And you still say it DOESNT HAPPEN???
ha ha ha

all I can say is LIAR!

ha ha
Eddie Runner
http://www.installer.com/tech/

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

Hi ya Daxe...
Tom wrote an article in a car stereo magazine a few years ago
that claims moving the box around in a car DOESNT MATTER
the direction the woofers face DOESNT MATTER
and that there are no BASS standing waves in a car and alot of
other things that most of us know are UNTRUE....

So what is true Eddie? Your little cartoons drawings or real time-based
acoustical measurements made with real woofers in real cars.


Dude! Maybe your microphone is messed up or something.

How is it that a large majority of people, that when they turn their
subwoofer box around to face the rear of the car, the low bass output goes
up substantially? Not a small amount that has to be measured with delicate
instruments, but such an amount that people can immediately tell that
something has changed and that the system is a lot louder.

Could it be that you ARE wrong, and are just too much of a cry-baby to admit
it just once? Oh, that would ruin your delicate reputation,wouldn't it?

Wow, you must be tone deaf, cause when I turned my speakers around in
the hatch of my '96 Escort LX, there was a HUGE difference, I went from not
having any bass, to having more than enough bass. So in turn, I turned my
amp down, so in the long run it also saved my speakers.

"daxe" wrote in message
...

"Nousaine" wrote in message
...

speaker location is irrrelevant below 60
Hz. Moving the woofer back and forth makes no difference; nor does cone
direction.

I appreciate your gobbledygook, but it wouldnt have solved my problem when
I
had it. Keep that in mind when "we should be careful to attribute effects
to
the proper cause." Explaining why a successful solution hasn't actually
worked has pretty limited value, it seems.

OK..so its not standing waves...as long as it sounds better, I dont care
what the name of the reason is. And your assertion that changing the
position of the speaker enclosure doesnt make a difference is wrong,
regardless of what your empirical knowledge suggests. My ears can tell
the
difference and that's the only test equipment that matters. It was hardly
a
subtle change, so it's not my imagination.

~daxe

"Nousaine" wrote in message
...

Well it may be standing waves but NOT at low frequencies. Any effects you
hear
are working at frequencies above 60 Hz. So as long as you understand this
we
remain on the same page and can apply this to the next system as well.

the freqs below 60 were non-existent until I turned the box around. that is
a real world fact. What you assert to be true is not completely true,
though Im sure it applies in some situation, somewhere.

And I will remind you again that your post did absolutely NOTHING to help me
or the person who asked the question, you were just pooting out data that
apparently doesnt apply in the real world. Eddie R's page of "cartoons"
solved my problem and the similar problems of other folks, it seems, so
whose offering is more valuable?

Do some tests and let us know the answer, OK?

~daxe

"Nousaine" wrote in message
...

First of all...anyone with any sense of technical excellence as it relates
to the real world wouldn't use AOL as an ISP.

So what is true Eddie? Your little cartoons drawings or real time-based
acoustical measurements made with real woofers in real cars.

in my experience, ERs info is infinitely more useful, since you offered NO
solution at all and claim that what has indeed worked for me is not "true",
whatever that means.

I've been to your site Eddie and your anaysis is so amateur its hard not
to
laugh.

Maybe or maybe not, but his analysis solved my problem and yours didn't.
What fargin good is your analysis, then?

~daxe

Eddie Runner wrote:


Nousaine wrote:

Eddie Runner wrote:

Hi ya Daxe...
Tom wrote an article in a car stereo magazine a few years ago
that claims moving the box around in a car DOESNT MATTER
the direction the woofers face DOESNT MATTER
and that there are no BASS standing waves in a car and alot of
other things that most of us know are UNTRUE....

So what is true Eddie? Your little cartoons drawings or real time-based
acoustical measurements made with real woofers in real cars.

the little CARTOONS are so that ANYONE can understand it...

Except, apparently, you. The 'waves' you draw in the car are of such a length
that they cannot be of low bass frequency unless that car were 20-30 ft long.


I have
always hated the moron technical guys that cant speak in small words...
I think someone that truely understands something can say it in small words
as well as big words.... IMO building a tech page for the average car
audio buff would not be productive if we used all the big words that
most of them wouldnt understand... I have gone to great pains to have my
pages understood by ANYONE!

You might consider starting with some understanding about acoustics yourself
before trying to teach others.

If you dont like em you have a right to write your own, or even criticize
mine...
Thats why I publish things anyway, to INVITE criticizm!!
Same reason scientists publish papers, to invite critisizm...
UNLIKE YOU,
you make this **** up so the magazines can PAY YOU!! ha ha ha

Eddie; that's why I publish things in the magazines and elesewhere. Have you
given papers at AES Conventions? I have. Do you own and operate a computer
based acoustical measurement system? I do.

Accuracy must not mattter at all... ha ha
And CRITICISM! WHOA!
You get so uptite when we talk about this subject I can hear your ASS PUCKER
all the way down here in TEXAS! ha ha ha

Uptight? I'm not the one running around shouting "LIAR."


If you dont believe my web page on the subject you may feel free to tell
us YOUR THEORY on why all these kids woofer boxes sound best when
aimed backwards!!!

OH THATS RIGHT!
You say it doesnt even do that at all.... ha ha ha!
No need for you to explain the phenomenon case IT DOESNT HAPPEN!
ha ha ha

Every kid on here knows your full of ****!
ha ha

The only thing that happens when you face the driver away from the front of the
car is that you sharpen the low pass filter effect and keep fewer mids and
highs from a straight shot at the front. It is true that many woofer systems,
if not seriously low passed, have terrific IM and AM modulation of higher
frequencies and facing the woofer away will help ameliorate that effect but its
not a bass issue.

If you have some real data to share please feel free to put it on the table.


At the time of the article the TeamROCS guys did an expose article
online debunking the article by Tom Nousaine with lots of meters
test equiment and pictures, I dont know if its still on the teamrocs
website
or not......

I read Toms article and noticed his TEST CAR WAS A CORVETTE!
ha ha ha Not much area to move a box around in that little car at all so
I guess thats why his results were flawed...

Published results were prior to Corvette time Eddie. But since 1988 I've
used a
Saab 99, Volvo 240 wagon, Taurus, Areostar, Integra, CRX, Camaro Z28,
Bonneville, X-Cab Chevie Pick-up and 3 different Corvettes for woofer
evaluations.

And you still say it DOESNT HAPPEN???
ha ha ha

So; you want to argue or do you want to put some data on the table?


all I can say is LIAR!

ha ha
Eddie Runner
http://www.installer.com/t

I'm guessing that Eddie is more comfortable calling names. That's alot easier
than looking at a problem/issue rationally and investigating it with real test
equipment.

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 at 02:41 GMT, Nousaine wrote:
"daxe" wrote:

Well I'm glad that some tuning of your system made it work the way
you wanted. But the reasons that Eddie gives are just plain
wrong, they don't fit with what we know about acoustics,
loudspeakers and car audio systems.

I am new to car audio so I am wondering what YOU think the
scientific reason why so many folks find their subs sounding better
when they turn them around. So far, what Eddie put forth sounds
good to me, but then I don't know much about audio.

All I am looking for your hypothesis and real world scientific tests
to prove it.

Sam

"daxe" wrote:

"Nousaine" wrote in message
...

First of all...anyone with any sense of technical excellence as it relates
to the real world wouldn't use AOL as an ISP.

Why would you make such a silly comment? My e-mail address is now nearly 15
years old and it makes it easy for readers and colleagues to find me.

So what is true Eddie? Your little cartoons drawings or real time-based
acoustical measurements made with real woofers in real cars.

in my experience, ERs info is infinitely more useful, since you offered NO
solution at all and claim that what has indeed worked for me is not "true",
whatever that means.

Eddie offered a cute explanation that would have been useful IF it fit the
acoustics in a car.

I've been to your site Eddie and your anaysis is so amateur its hard not
to
laugh.

Maybe or maybe not, but his analysis solved my problem and yours didn't.

But you haven't actually told how it solved your 'problem'. There are some good
reasons to face a woofer away from the drivers seat BUT none of them have to do
with frequencies below roughly 50-60 Hz.

What fargin good is your analysis, then?

~daxe

I find it interesting how quickly people want to start yelling and fussing
about an issue instead of just learning something from it.

Again, in a vehicle the interior volume and dimensions are such that the
pressure-region where the speaker displacement pressurizes the cabin instead of
setting up standing waves begins somewhere around 50-60 Hz depending on the
vehicle size. The wavelength of a 60 Hz tone is about 19 feet long, a fact that
Eddie conveniently ignores. Wavelengths increase in length as frequency goes
lower. For example a 20 Hz tone has a wavelength of about 50 feet.

This means the woofer placement is irrelevant below this frequency.

OTOH the standing wave region then occurs between 60 and 600 Hz or an octave
higher than the typical living room.

So when people turn the woofer around they may be hearing changes at 100,200 Hz
and such. This isn't "low bass". If the system was effectively low passed then
this kind of issue is relatively less important.

Also woofer systems, especially bass reflex systems, can have out-of-band
artifacts such as IM and AM distortion (which comes as higher frequency
sounds), port grunts or midrange sound reflected from the backwall of the
enclosure through the cone that may be reduced if the woofer is faced away from
the listener. Again these are NOT bass effects.

But this is what people "hear" when they re-orient the woofer direction.

These are all well-known and verifyable issues that Eddie either knows nothing
about or just doesn't care. He'd rather just shout "LIAR" instead of dealing
with real acoustics and audio engineering issues.

"daxe"


"Nousaine" wrote in message
...

Well it may be standing waves but NOT at low frequencies. Any effects you
hear
are working at frequencies above 60 Hz. So as long as you understand this
we
remain on the same page and can apply this to the next system as well.

the freqs below 60 were non-existent until I turned the box around. that is
a real world fact. What you assert to be true is not completely true,
though Im sure it applies in some situation, somewhere.

And I will remind you again that your post did absolutely NOTHING to help me
or the person who asked the question, you were just pooting out data that
apparently doesnt apply in the real world. Eddie R's page of "cartoons"
solved my problem and the similar problems of other folks, it seems, so
whose offering is more valuable?

Do some tests and let us know the answer, OK?

~daxe


I've done the tests on perhaps a couple hundred woofers in a dozen cars. You
might ask yourself how you determined what was 60 Hz and below and what wasn't.


Most people when asked to give the frequency of a 100 Hz tone will guess "50
Hz" and likewise when given 1000 Hz will guess 3000 Hz. This is an important
issue and why I always verify my frequency information with computer based
acoustical measuring equipment (MLSSA.)

"Nousaine" wrote in message
...
"daxe"

I've done the tests on perhaps a couple hundred woofers in a dozen cars.
You
might ask yourself how you determined what was 60 Hz and below and what
wasn't.

aand you suggested nothing to help me or anyone else. You are a worthless
blowhard.

~daxe

"Nousaine" wrote in message
...

Why would you make such a silly comment? My e-mail address is now nearly
15
years old and it makes it easy for readers and colleagues to find me.

I need some references and documented proof that "aol.com" existed nearly 15
years ago. As far as I know, AOL was still "Applelink" in 1988 and did not
offer internet access....

Eddie offered a cute explanation that would have been useful IF it fit the
acoustics in a car.

It was useful to ma and a lot of other people and you have offered nothing
useful.

But you haven't actually told how it solved your 'problem'. There are some
good
reasons to face a woofer away from the drivers seat BUT none of them have
to do
with frequencies below roughly 50-60 Hz.

It DOESNT MATTER HOW..the point is that it did. And you STILL havent
offered a solution to me or anyone else. Obviously you dont have a solution,
just definitions.

I find it interesting how quickly people want to start yelling and fussing
about an issue instead of just learning something from it.

When the question is "how can I fix problem A", what people want to learn is
how to fix problem A, not how to define the problem. They already have
defined the problem as far as their needs go, incorrectly or not, thats why
they are seeking a solution. A working solution was offered, and not by
you. Your opportunity to learn things is potentially interesting, but it
has nothing to do with solving the problem. YOU seem to have trouble
defining the POINT of something and sticking to it.

This means the woofer placement is irrelevant below this frequency.

OK..I'll move it back and enjoy the ****ty sound because you say it doesnt
matter. Im sure I'll be much happier.

So when people turn the woofer around they may be hearing changes at
100,200 Hz
and such. This isn't "low bass". If the system was effectively low passed
then
this kind of issue is relatively less important.

OK, you win. my changes were at those frequencies.

Also woofer systems, especially bass reflex systems, can have out-of-band
artifacts such as IM and AM distortion (which comes as higher frequency
sounds), port grunts or midrange sound reflected from the backwall of the
enclosure through the cone that may be reduced if the woofer is faced away
from
the listener. Again these are NOT bass effects.

who gives a flying f*ck what they are called. Did you suggest that the
person turn the woofer around to improve the sound? No. All your knowledge
and experience has benefitted no-one in application of a solution.

But this is what people "hear" when they re-orient the woofer direction.

great. I hear that. Are you happy? Will you be the person in the future
who pipes up and says "turn your woofer around, it will sound better", I
doubt it. So you will continue to be correct and utterly worthless, while
Eddie R will continue to be wrong and very useful. I'll take a quic, free
solution to my problem, anyday. I am pretty sure most other folks outside a
laboratory with an unlimited budget feel the same way.

These are all well-known and verifyable issues that Eddie either knows
nothing
about or just doesn't care. He'd rather just shout "LIAR" instead of
dealing
with real acoustics and audio engineering issues.

He solved my problem. You didn't. You may or may not be a liar, but you
contribute nothing of practical value and I consider your prattle to be
useless.

~daxe

Tom still says there is NO DIFFERENCE!!
ha ha

I have tried to have this discussion with him before, he wont get
down to a discussion, its basicly HE IS RIGHT so we have to live with it.
ha ha ha

Eddie
According to Tom its all an illusion!

daxe wrote:


Eddie R's suggestions about reaiming the speaker box solved the problem and
the
system sounds great to me, again. There's no facts or testing necessary
other than me being able to hear the dramatic difference in sound.

~daxe

Nousaine wrote:

Well I'm glad that some tuning of your system made it work the way you wanted.
But the reasons that Eddie gives are just plain wrong, they don't fit with what
we know about acoustics, loudspeakers and car audio systems.

They dont fit with what YOU think YOU know!
ha ha ha

YOU still think the phenomenon CANT HAPPEN IN A CAR!

BUT IT DOES!!!!!!

Can you offer a better explanation that I did with my CARTOONS???

Or you still just say IT CANT HAPPEN IN A CAR...???

Whatcha gonna do Tom???

Eddie Runner
Cartoonist....

He wont answer you!
He still believes the Phonomenon CANT HAPPEN IN A CAR!

Atleast thats what his crappy magazine article said...

Eddie Runner

Sam Carleton wrote:

I am new to car audio so I am wondering what YOU think the
scientific reason why so many folks find their subs sounding better
when they turn them around. So far, what Eddie put forth sounds
good to me, but then I don't know much about audio.

All I am looking for your hypothesis and real world scientific tests
to prove it.

Sam

Sam Carleton wrote:



On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 at 02:41 GMT, Nousaine wrote:
"daxe" wrote:

Well I'm glad that some tuning of your system made it work the way
you wanted. But the reasons that Eddie gives are just plain
wrong, they don't fit with what we know about acoustics,
loudspeakers and car audio systems.

I am new to car audio so I am wondering what YOU think the
scientific reason why so many folks find their subs sounding better
when they turn them around. So far, what Eddie put forth sounds
good to me, but then I don't know much about audio.

All I am looking for your hypothesis and real world scientific tests
to prove it.

Sam

As I mentioned in another post. The effects at low frequencies in the car by
"aiming" your woofer are due to higher frequency effects/artifacts being
reduced in amplitude. Often a good low pass filter or other tuning will also
ameliorate these problems as well.

It is also true that most people are often pretty far off when they 'estimate'
frequency. When I play a 100 Hz sine wave and ask people what the frequency is
they usually reply 50 or 60 Hz.

Nousaine wrote:

the little CARTOONS are so that ANYONE can understand it...

Except, apparently, you. The 'waves' you draw in the car are of such a length
that they cannot be of low bass frequency unless that car were 20-30 ft long.

1st off.... The if you read my article a little more closely the waves and
distances
I used to write MY article are at 60Hz.... Here is a link to my paper again in
case you have forgotten and since you obviously need to read it again
http://www.installer.com/tech/aiming.html

2nd.... A self proclaimed AUDIO GURU such as yourself should know that
a 20 or 30 ft wave as you suggest above would be about 37Hz to 55Hz if
your here on planet earth with the rest of us, but you keep rfering to 60Hz
which is only about 18ft.....

3rd... And this is where I would guess your off track in your theories...For
a standing wave to occur the whole wave (18ft at 60Hz) doesnt need to be
stretched out to a full 18 ft like you seem to be saying... A reflection can
come back on itself and create a standing wave in as little as 1/4 wavelength
(4.7ft).... So while your spouting the HUGE 20-30ft wavelengths (as you
did above) trying to justify your position, your ignoring (or just dont know)
about the facts that standing waves occur in as little as 1/4 wavelength (and
even shorter is possible in complex reflective situations like A CAR).....

You might consider starting with some understanding about acoustics yourself
before trying to teach others.

ha ha
Jeez Tom,
its so funny how most of these folks on here that have read my article
feel like they have gotten something from it.... Its funny how the results I
say that will get DOES HAPPEN and you still say IT CANT WORK...
ha ha
It cracks me up....
Who elected you GURU anyway???

you make this **** up so the magazines can PAY YOU!! ha ha ha

Eddie; that's why I publish things in the magazines and elesewhere.

For the PAY not for the ACCURACY!
Yes thats obvious......

Have you
given papers at AES Conventions?

Tom, I hate to dissapoint you but I was an AES member back in 1982...

I have. Do you own and operate a computer
based acoustical measurement system? I do.

Yes I have the LMS system, and I have been around audio test equipment
for well over 30years.....I was writing computer software pertaining to
loudspeaker measurement well back into the early 80s on Apple II and
Atari computers before there were affordable PCs as we know them today..

(and you thinkIM just a catrtoonist...)
ha ha ha

Every kid on here knows your full of ****!
ha ha

The only thing that happens when you face the driver away from the front of the
car is that you sharpen the low pass filter effect and keep fewer mids and
highs from a straight shot at the front.

There will be 100 folks on here that will tell you THATS NOT TRUE!
Yes, I agree thats one thing that might happen, but thats NOT why folks
turn the box backwards! Heck they even turn it backwards if they have
a backseat blocking (filtering) the highs and mids...

It is true that many woofer systems,
if not seriously low passed, have terrific IM and AM modulation of higher
frequencies and facing the woofer away will help ameliorate that effect but its
not a bass issue.

IT IS A BASS ISSUE!


If you have some real data to share please feel free to put it on the table.

I have!
Your the one thats ALL MOUTH and no show!

And you still say it DOESNT HAPPEN???
ha ha ha

So; you want to argue or do you want to put some data on the table?

there are 100 kids on here (and yes some adults as well) that have cars
with this phenomenon that you say DOESNT HAPPEN....
I would say they are on the table....

You still say IT DOESNT HAPPEN!
ha ha ha

I'm guessing that Eddie is more comfortable calling names. That's alot easier
than looking at a problem/issue rationally and investigating it with real test
equipment.

I think we have discussed this in the past Tom, YOU NEVER
PUT UP anything so when your ready with the tech stuff BRING IT ON...

ha ha
Eddie Runner

Tom thinks were imagining it...
ha ha ha

according to HIS UNDERSTANDING of science
IT CANT HAPPEN.

Eddie Runner

scott johnson wrote:

Dude! Maybe your microphone is messed up or something.

How is it that a large majority of people, that when they turn their
subwoofer box around to face the rear of the car, the low bass output goes
up substantially? Not a small amount that has to be measured with delicate
instruments, but such an amount that people can immediately tell that
something has changed and that the system is a lot louder.

Could it be that you ARE wrong, and are just too much of a cry-baby to admit
it just once? Oh, that would ruin your delicate reputation,wouldn't it?

AOL (American Online) was originally founded as Quantum Computer Services in
1985 and in November 1985 it released its first online service called Q-Link
which was launched on Commodore Business Machines. In January 1986 they had
a total of 10,000 users using Q-Link.

In October 1989, AOL service launched for Macintosh and Apple II and in
October 1991, Quantum Computer Services officially changes its name to
America Online, Inc. This same year marked the DOS version of AOL being
launched. March 19th, 1992 is the date that AOL went public on the NASDAQ.
The original price was $11.50 under the symbol AMER.

After four years of service in 1993, AOL was up to 500,000 members providing
access to the internet, and offered access to its own online information and
services which were aimed at the average American consumer. This year also
marks the date that AOL launches the windows version of AOL. In 1994 they
surpassed 1 million members and also acquired the following companies:
BookLink Technologies, developer of Internet applications, NaviSoft,
developer of Internet publishing tools, and Redgate Communications,
multimedia publishing company. Greenhouse is also launched at this time to
develop original content online.

1994 is also the year that they launch WAR against Microsoft. AOL is
determined to beat Microsoft when their new online service comes out. In
1994 Prodigy announces plans to provide users with access to the Web.



http://www.searchengineposition.com/...storyofaol.asp



For anyone who cares



Christian

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

Why would you make such a silly comment? My e-mail address is now
nearly
15
years old and it makes it easy for readers and colleagues to find me.

I need some references and documented proof that "aol.com" existed
nearly 15
years ago. As far as I know, AOL was still "Applelink" in 1988 and did
not
offer internet access....

ha ha ha
Your figuring out what I have known for along time.....
MAGAZINE WRITERS LIKE TOM EXAGERATE ALOT!!!
ha ha ha

GOT HIM!!!
ha ha ha

Eddie offered a cute explanation that would have been useful IF it fit
the
acoustics in a car.

It was useful to ma and a lot of other people and you have offered
nothing
useful.

He just wants you to believe him WITH NO QUESTIONS!!
Writers as you may know DONT HAVE TO GIVE THIER SOURCES!
Its part of thier first amendement rights....
ha ha ha

It DOESNT MATTER HOW..the point is that it did. And you STILL havent
offered a solution to me or anyone else. Obviously you dont have a
solution,
just definitions.

and his definitions are wrng... ;-)

This means the woofer placement is irrelevant below this frequency.

OK..I'll move it back and enjoy the ****ty sound because you say it
doesnt
matter. Im sure I'll be much happier.

ha ha ha

about or just doesn't care. He'd rather just shout "LIAR" instead of
dealing
with real acoustics and audio engineering issues.

He solved my problem. You didn't. You may or may not be a liar, but
you
contribute nothing of practical value and I consider your prattle to be
useless.

ha ha ha
Sic em!



~daxe

Eddie Runner wrote:

Nousaine wrote:

the little CARTOONS are so that ANYONE can understand it...

Except, apparently, you. The 'waves' you draw in the car are of such a
length
that they cannot be of low bass frequency unless that car were 20-30 ft
long.

1st off.... The if you read my article a little more closely the waves and
distances
I used to write MY article are at 60Hz.... Here is a link to my paper again
in
case you have forgotten and since you obviously need to read it again
http://www.installer.com/tech/aiming.html

Actually your cartoons have no scaling to them. The frequencies would have to
be referent to some room dimensions so you can't just 'claim' they are 60 Hz.
Without a distance scale it can't be determined.



2nd.... A self proclaimed AUDIO GURU such as yourself should know that
a 20 or 30 ft wave as you suggest above would be about 37Hz to 55Hz if
your here on planet earth with the rest of us, but you keep rfering to 60Hz
which is only about 18ft.....

60 Hz is where the the lowest axial mode occurs in many small cars.


3rd... And this is where I would guess your off track in your theories...For
a standing wave to occur the whole wave (18ft at 60Hz) doesnt need to be
stretched out to a full 18 ft like you seem to be saying... A reflection can
come back on itself and create a standing wave in as little as 1/4 wavelength
(4.7ft)....

OK, what's the frequency of the that standing wave? (Hint:, the 2nd of 60 hz is
120 Hz, the 4th is 240 Hz.)

So while your spouting the HUGE 20-30ft wavelengths (as you
did above) trying to justify your position, your ignoring (or just dont know)
about the facts that standing waves occur in as little as 1/4 wavelength (and
even shorter is possible in complex reflective situations like A CAR).....

As I said, the standing wave region in a small car is between roughly 60 and
600 Hz.


You might consider starting with some understanding about acoustics
yourself
before trying to teach others.

ha ha
Jeez Tom,
its so funny how most of these folks on here that have read my article
feel like they have gotten something from it.... Its funny how the results I
say that will get DOES HAPPEN and you still say IT CANT WORK...
ha ha
It cracks me up....
Who elected you GURU anyway???

you make this **** up so the magazines can PAY YOU!! ha ha ha

Eddie; that's why I publish things in the magazines and elesewhere.

For the PAY not for the ACCURACY!
Yes thats obvious......

Have you
given papers at AES Conventions?

Tom, I hate to dissapoint you but I was an AES member back in 1982...

So what happened?


I have. Do you own and operate a computer
based acoustical measurement system? I do.

Yes I have the LMS system, and I have been around audio test equipment
for well over 30years.....

OK then why not publish some response graphs at the listeners head position
with the enclosure in different directions or locations? That's what I did.

Eddie Runner wrote:

daxe wrote:

Why would you make such a silly comment? My e-mail address is now nearly
15
years old and it makes it easy for readers and colleagues to find me.

I need some references and documented proof that "aol.com" existed nearly
15
years ago. As far as I know, AOL was still "Applelink" in 1988 and did not
offer internet access....

ha ha ha
Your figuring out what I have known for along time.....
MAGAZINE WRITERS LIKE TOM EXAGERATE ALOT!!!
ha ha ha

GOT HIM!!!
ha ha ha


Let's see it's July 2003; my aol account has been active since 1990. That's
"nearly 15 years old" in my book. This is ignoring that i began using e-mail
professionally in 1985.

The point I made was that my e-mail address has remained unchanged for this
time because it makes it easy for readers, freinds, colleagues and associates
to keep in touch in a changign world. During this period my phone numbers and
mailing addresses have changed several times.

Nousaine wrote:

Let's see it's July 2003; my aol account has been active since 1990. That's
"nearly 15 years old" in my book.

ha ha ha
NEARLY to you may not be NEARLY to someone else...

AND CLEARLY, you were exagerating to prove your point!
Not a scientific thing to do Tom....

This is ignoring that i began using e-mail
professionally in 1985.

Whoooo Hoooooo Arent you something....

I go back a little earlier than that...

I had a BBS system that went online in 1982 and ran continuosly till 1993, of
course I was online much earlier than 82, and there were no EMail addresses
as we know them today...

Certainly no AOL....

Eddie Runner

Eddie Runner wrote:

...large snips .....

Nousaine wrote:

Again, in a vehicle the interior volume and dimensions are such that the
pressure-region where the speaker displacement pressurizes the cabin
instead of
setting up standing waves begins somewhere around 50-60 Hz depending on the
vehicle size.

My definition of pressurizing the cabin would have to be a wavelength where
the
vehicle cabin would be no more than about 1/16 to 1/8th of a wavelength, so
that
nearly the entire cabin could have the same pressure level at the same
time...
in a vehicle that has a 6 or 7 ft front to back interior and a side to side
width
of about 5 ft... It might happen at 20Hz where the 1/8 wavelength is about
7ft and
the 1/16 wavelength is 3.5 ft.... the difference in 3.5 ft is 22 degrees...

Moving up in frequency to 40Hz, the 1/8 wavelength is about 3.5 ft and the
1/16
wavelength is less that 2 ft.... Geez, it seems like a real pressure wave is
kinda
hard
to have in a normal sized car at 40Hz Tom...!!! ???

You seem to be making this up as you go along Eddie. Cabin-Gain in vehicles is
a well known and establish phenomenon. You can planing see from the near-field
lab measurements and in-car frequency response measurements from my woofer
tests it begins at 60 Hz in a Corvette or other car with similar interior size.
BTW this car has a 25 ft3 hatch area so acoustically it's larger than a CRX and
about the same as an Integra or similar vehicle.

It's also well known that pressure effects begin below the frequency of the
lowest axial mode in any given space (which is 60 hz in this car and 26 Hz in a
22-foot long listening room.) One can see from the graphs that providing the
speaker has adequate displacement I get nearly 30 dB of low frequency
reinforcement at 8 Hz.

Pressure gain is harder to realize in a larger space such as a living room
because it begins at a lower frequency and the space itself requires much more
speaker displacement to energize. There is also more low frequency absorption
in a larger space especially with stick-frame construction.

For example it's not that hard to get 120 dB SPL @ less than 20% at 12-62 Hz
distortion from a good 10-inch speaker in a 1-ft3 or smaller enclosure because
of pressure reinforcement (Cabin Gain). In my 7600 ft3 Home Theater it takes 8
15-inch TC Sounds woofers in an infinite baffle to get 120 dB over this range @
2 meters listening position.

Now you can put your 1/8 wavelength back in your butt Eddie.

Nousaine wrote:

case you have forgotten and since you obviously need to read it again
http://www.installer.com/tech/aiming.html

Actually your cartoons have no scaling to them.

Well the pictures may not be EXACTLY to scale, but the article does clearly
point out the scale, in the first picture the woofer box rear is 3 ft from the
reflecting wall.... What is it about THAT SCALE you dont understand???
Similar distances in cars for car sub woofer boxes ARE QUITE COMMON!

Scale seems believable to me....!!

The frequencies would have to
be referent to some room dimensions so you can't just 'claim' they are 60 Hz.
Without a distance scale it can't be determined.

Not true!
we dont have to HAVE A ROOM for a standing wave to occur!

A standing wave can occur WHENEVER two (or more) waves combine to make a result
(node or antinode (cencelation or reinforcment)) that is ALWAYS there..!!

In other words, if a reflector causes a peak at 60Hz ALWAYS it is a standing
wave...
Or if a reflector causes a DIP at 60Hz ALWAYS it is a standing wave!

Your schooling on this matter seems to just include the rudimentry facts normally
shown in the most elementry physics books that mention standing waves...

My paper must be confusing you because I show ONLY ONE reflector, breaking
the standing wave problem down to its simplest form, which doesnt make sense
to you cause THERE IS NO ROOM!

ha ha

2nd.... A self proclaimed AUDIO GURU such as yourself should know that
a 20 or 30 ft wave as you suggest above would be about 37Hz to 55Hz if
your here on planet earth with the rest of us, but you keep rfering to 60Hz
which is only about 18ft.....

60 Hz is where the the lowest axial mode occurs in many small cars.

Like your little CORVETTE.... Yes, there are MANY corvettes out there!
You carefully worded that so that YOUR statement may be correct!

But its sad that YOUR WORDS have little to do with mst of the folks out there!

Why hide behind these carefully choosen words?????
Why not speak the truth with as many words as you can??

3rd... And this is where I would guess your off track in your theories...For
a standing wave to occur the whole wave (18ft at 60Hz) doesnt need to be
stretched out to a full 18 ft like you seem to be saying... A reflection can
come back on itself and create a standing wave in as little as 1/4 wavelength
(4.7ft)....

OK, what's the frequency of the that standing wave? (Hint:, the 2nd of 60 hz is
120 Hz, the 4th is 240 Hz.)

MORE IMPORTANTLY where are the nodes and antinodes!!!

I think you missed that part in physics class! Were yu sick that day???

So while your spouting the HUGE 20-30ft wavelengths (as you
did above) trying to justify your position, your ignoring (or just dont know)
about the facts that standing waves occur in as little as 1/4 wavelength (and
even shorter is possible in complex reflective situations like A CAR).....

As I said, the standing wave region in a small car is between roughly 60 and
600 Hz.

So your just saying 60Hz and 600Hz??
Am I hearing you correctly??

I think your mistaking RESONANCES with STANDING WAVES!!!

Tom, I hate to dissapoint you but I was an AES member back in 1982...
So what happened?

I guess you were dissapointed by the facts that you mention AES in the
attempt to make your self look like a bigshot and I already been there and
done that..... ha ha ha

Yes I have the LMS system, and I have been around audio test equipment
for well over 30years.....

OK then why not publish some response graphs at the listeners head position
with the enclosure in different directions or locations? That's what I did.

Cause Im lazy, its raining today and I would rather watch these kiddos call
you names here on the internet..... ha ha ha

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

Nousaine wrote:

You seem to be making this up as you go along Eddie.

Please point out what I *made up* instead of just making generalized comments to
attempt to make me look bad.....

----- irrelevant crap about Toms dick ,....ER, CORVETTE snipped out-----

It's also well known that pressure effects begin below the frequency of the
lowest axial mode in any given space (which is 60 hz in this car and 26 Hz in a
22-foot long listening room.)

My CARTOON example doesnt have an AXIAL MODE does it Tom???
(or are you just using the big words so the kiddies cant follow you)....

I used to work with a salesman that used big words so customers would
think he was smart, he had no idea what the big sceintific words meant...
ha ha (his name also was Tom)

If ya dont know, baffle em with bull**** he used to say.... ha ha ha

One can see from the graphs that providing the
speaker has adequate displacement I get nearly 30 dB of low frequency
reinforcement at 8 Hz.

Did you send GRAPHS??? Or are these just in your head???
I didnt see any graphs???
Did you pick the wrong day to stop sniffin glue????

Pressure gain is harder to realize in a larger space such as a living room
because it begins at a lower frequency and the space itself requires much more
speaker displacement to energize. There is also more low frequency absorption
in a larger space especially with stick-frame construction.

I think your confused on the definition of a pressure wave.... I tried to
explain it to you earlier.... when you do have real pressurization from soundwaves
the listeining area HAS TO BE very small in relation to the wavelength...
Prolly wont hapen in your living room!

Now you can put your 1/8 wavelength back in your butt Eddie.

Like I said, you dont understand what constitutes a pressure wave...

By MY definition, it would be where instead of a wave moving though
the listining area, with discernable parts of the waves PHASE measurable,
the whole listening area would appear to pressureize and depressurize as
one....

In other words, a wave moves through the listening area, you can have points
where the pressure rises while having other points where the pressure is falling!

A pressure field would be when EVERYWHERE in the listening area is
close to being THE SAME PHASE and the whole place pressurizes at once and
depressurizes at once.....

At least I DEFINE things...
Helps the kiddos follow the action....

ha ha

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

Eddie Runner wrote:

Nousaine wrote:

case you have forgotten and since you obviously need to read it again
http://www.installer.com/tech/aiming.html

Actually your cartoons have no scaling to them.

Well the pictures may not be EXACTLY to scale, but the article does clearly
point out the scale, in the first picture the woofer box rear is 3 ft from
the
reflecting wall.... What is it about THAT SCALE you dont understand???
Similar distances in cars for car sub woofer boxes ARE QUITE COMMON!

Scale seems believable to me....!!

The frequencies would have to
be referent to some room dimensions so you can't just 'claim' they are 60
Hz.
Without a distance scale it can't be determined.

Not true!
we dont have to HAVE A ROOM for a standing wave to occur!

Actually you don't seem to understand that
a standing wave requires 2 opposing surfaces to form. If you have a single wall
there will be no standing wave.So where is the listener in your cartoon? And
how does that fit with an enclosed space? You're attempting to describe the
Allison effect with a single wall, and yes there may be some interdriver
interference but in your example that would be occuring at much higher
frequencies around 200 Hz.


A standing wave can occur WHENEVER two (or more) waves combine to make a
result
(node or antinode (cencelation or reinforcment)) that is ALWAYS there..!!

A standing wave will ONLY occur when you have two opposing walls or surfaces.
Otherwise its a propagating wave.

In other words, if a reflector causes a peak at 60Hz ALWAYS it is a standing
wave...
Or if a reflector causes a DIP at 60Hz ALWAYS it is a standing wave!

Only when there's an opposing surface.


Your schooling on this matter seems to just include the rudimentry facts
normally
shown in the most elementry physics books that mention standing waves...

My paper must be confusing you because I show ONLY ONE reflector, breaking
the standing wave problem down to its simplest form, which doesnt make sense
to you cause THERE IS NO ROOM!

And there's no standing wave either, is there?


ha ha

2nd.... A self proclaimed AUDIO GURU such as yourself should know that
a 20 or 30 ft wave as you suggest above would be about 37Hz to 55Hz if
your here on planet earth with the rest of us, but you keep rfering to
60Hz
which is only about 18ft.....

60 Hz is where the the lowest axial mode occurs in many small cars.

Like your little CORVETTE.... Yes, there are MANY corvettes out there!
You carefully worded that so that YOUR statement may be correct!

Oh it's correct alright not only for this Corvette but the 2 C4s I used prior.
It was also true for my Z28 and Integra. The CRX had a slightly higher turnover
frequency.


But its sad that YOUR WORDS have little to do with mst of the folks out
there!

Why hide behind these carefully choosen words?????
Why not speak the truth with as many words as you can??

I'm hiding behind nothing Eddie. But I wonder why you are so sensitive about
this? Too much initial shouting and blather does that to people I guess.


3rd... And this is where I would guess your off track in your
theories...For
a standing wave to occur the whole wave (18ft at 60Hz) doesnt need to be
stretched out to a full 18 ft like you seem to be saying... A reflection
can
come back on itself and create a standing wave in as little as 1/4
wavelength
(4.7ft)....

OK, what's the frequency of the that standing wave? (Hint:, the 2nd of 60
hz is
120 Hz, the 4th is 240 Hz.)

MORE IMPORTANTLY where are the nodes and antinodes!!!

And what are the frequencies involved? In a 22 x 12 x 8 foot room the primary
axial modes occur at 26,45 and 70 Hz with 2nds at 52,90 and 140. In the car
shift everything up by a little more than an octave.


I think you missed that part in physics class! Were yu sick that day???

So while your spouting the HUGE 20-30ft wavelengths (as you
did above) trying to justify your position, your ignoring (or just dont
know)
about the facts that standing waves occur in as little as 1/4 wavelength
(and
even shorter is possible in complex reflective situations like A CAR).....

As I said, the standing wave region in a small car is between roughly 60
and
600 Hz.

So your just saying 60Hz and 600Hz??
Am I hearing you correctly??

I think your mistaking RESONANCES with STANDING WAVES!!!

Resonances of what? Inter-driver cancellation effects? That's not a resonance
condition. Standing waves often help form resonances in walls or car bodies
that affects the wear-down of standing waves but standing waves are a direct
function of opposing surfaces of which there are 3 sets in an enclosed
rectangular structure. In the car, a much smaller but still an enclosed space,
there are still a set of three axial standing wave sets which are a function of
the volume and dimensions of the space. These will ALL occur at 60 Hz and above
in a car the size of a Corvette.


Tom, I hate to dissapoint you but I was an AES member back in 1982...
So what happened?

I guess you were dissapointed by the facts that you mention AES in the
attempt to make your self look like a bigshot and I already been there and
done that..... ha ha ha

Done what? Given a Convention Paper? I'm guessing that you're no longer a
member, why not?


Yes I have the LMS system, and I have been around audio test equipment
for well over 30years.....

OK then why not publish some response graphs at the listeners head position
with the enclosure in different directions or locations? That's what I did.

Cause Im lazy, its raining today and I would rather watch these kiddos call
you names here on the internet..... ha ha ha

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

Well I guess that may well be. I'm also guessing that you don't know how to do
a transfer function meaurement in the car.

Nousaine wrote:

You're attempting to describe the
Allison effect with a single wall,

Yes, I am... IM glad you finally paid a little attention to my article...

Are you now admitting that turning the woofer box around backwards
CAN IMPROVE THE BASS???

Eddie Runner

Nousaine wrote:

Well I guess that may well be. I'm also guessing that you don't know how to do
a transfer function meaurement in the car.

Are you BLIND????

Nousaine wrote:

Well I guess that may well be. I'm also guessing that you don't know how to do
a transfer function meaurement in the car.

are you blind???
http://www.installer.com/tech/transfer.html

He is saying it will make no difference with bass below 60Hz or so! Why
don't you guys get a good 24 or 48db crossover, set it real low, and go TEST
IT IN YOUR CAR! Move the sub around, face it towards the back seat, then try
other positions!


Have you ever done this? I KNOW that it happens. I have done it in several
vehicles myself, Eddie has done it in several (probably hunderd) vehicles. You
can argue that it cant happen but it does, It has been done and will continue
to be done and no amount of fancy talk from Nousaine will change that. No
article in some crappy magazine will change that.


I don't see how you guys can argue NOUSAINE when you don't even understand
what he is saying!

I think people understand clearly. I have understood the whole thread and it is
blantanly obvious that he is wrong.
Why cant anyone argue with Nousaine? Because he writes for a magazine he is
some audio expert? I dont think so. You should read some of the crap he spouts
on other groups. He is a writer not an audio guru. Put down the magazine and
maybe you will learn something.

Les