[James]

Ok, maybe some of you guys can give me some hints as to why I am not
satisfied with the new front speakers in my 1997 Jeep Wrangler.

Let me start from the beginning. Several months ago I installed a new HU,
the Alpine 9857. This set is rated at 18 watts per channel, but many folks
consider that a very conservative rating on this particular HU. I am not
running an amp.

I purchased an adaptor so that I could replace the front 4 X 6 speakers
with the Polk Audio DB5250, which is a 5 1/4 inch speaker with a
separate tweeter and crossover unit. Before choosing this speaker, I
read **many** reviews that rated these speakers very very highly. Yes,
the reviews pointed out that this size speaker doesn't produce HUGE bass,
but of course that couldn't be expected from any speaker this size. But,
every review that I read said that these speakers perform way beyond their
size, and are fantastic.

I also installed polyfill in the front dash, in the area above, below,
behind, and all sides of these front speakers. Many folks reported that
this improves the bass response.

RESULTS-- these speakers really seem dull, and dead. I don't know any
better way to explain it. To be more specific, they seem to have **almost
no** bass response. Once again, I know that they cannot have huge bass, but
I have heard other speakers of this size that have three times the bass
response.

Equally puzzling, the tweeters themselves actually distort the music. When
I say distorted, I mean fairly strong distortion, on some music passages.
They don't seem to distort all the time, but they are significantly
distorted. ( some users say these tweeters are a bit too "bright", and I
have cut down on the treble to account for this).

I have double-checked the hookup wiring, including the phasing, etc etc.
As far as I can tell, I have everything right, left and right. (The two
sides seem to perform the same).

---------------------------------------

I guess there are several possibilities:


1. Bad HU, causing distortion in the highs.

2. Bad crossovers.

3. Bad tweeters on these brand new speakers.

4. Too much polyfill, not allowing speakers to push enough air, thus
restricting the bass.

--------------------------------------

The speakers in the rollbar are very old , and basically "blown." I plan
to order new speakers for them soon. I know that if I had speakers in the
rollbar, I could make some comparisons. Yet, I hate to choose speakers for
them until I get better satisfaction out of the front Polks. I had thought
of similar Polks for the rollbar.

Can you guys give me some advice, and/or comments ? Any other
possibilities other than the 4 items that I have listed above ?

Yes, I know that any good speaker system will sound better with an amp.
But, nearly all of the user-reviews that I have read, indicate that these
speakers will do a fine job with 18 watts per channel. Also, I think
that the improvement from an amp would be mainly in the bass and mids/ but
not sound from the tweeters, right ?

Thank you very much for any additional thoughts or ideas. I want decent,
good-quality sound, that I can play medium-loud. I am an older gent, and
don't listen to rap , rock, or other extremely loud music. But, I do know
decent sound when I hear it, and at this point, these speakers don't even
come near what I had hoped for.


--James--

[Eeyore]

James wrote:

Before choosing this speaker, I
read **many** reviews that rated these speakers very very highly.

A 5 inch - 2 way speaker ? LMAO !

Those magazine reviews exist mainly to help sell their advertisers' products.

What's the big deal with Polk anyway ?

Graham

[Geoff]

James wrote:

I also installed polyfill in the front dash, in the area above, below,
behind, and all sides of these front speakers. Many folks reported
that this improves the bass response.

Filling the space with 'polyfill' may be what killed you sound.


geoff

[end_is_near1]

"Geoff" wrote in message
...
James wrote:

I also installed polyfill in the front dash, in the area above, below,
behind, and all sides of these front speakers. Many folks reported
that this improves the bass response.

Filling the space with 'polyfill' may be what killed you sound.


geoff

It's "your" sound, not "you" sound. When did this grammatical cancer begin
to grow? One sees it everywhere.

[Geoff]

end_is_near1 wrote:
"Geoff" wrote in message
...
James wrote:

I also installed polyfill in the front dash, in the area above,
below, behind, and all sides of these front speakers. Many folks
reported that this improves the bass response.

Filling the space with 'polyfill' may be what killed you sound.


geoff

It's "your" sound, not "you" sound. When did this grammatical cancer
begin to grow? One sees it everywhere.

Typo. Get a life.

geoff

[Peter Larsen]

James wrote:

Ok, maybe some of you guys can give me some hints as to
why I am not satisfied with the new front speakers in my
1997 Jeep Wrangler.

Nobody can because that is about the difference between expected and
achieved.

Let me start from the beginning. Several months ago
I installed a new HU, the Alpine 9857. This set is
rated at 18 watts per channel, but many folks

boink, I don't like the sound of that many folks, if it is claimed to
have "18 watts pr. channel" then it probably has some 5 to 9 watts pr
channel as amplifier power is normally measured.

consider that a very conservative rating on this particular HU.
I am not running an amp.

Something that delivers 30 watts RMS into the actual speaker load pr.
loudspeaker unit comes to mind.

I purchased an adaptor so that I could replace the front 4 X 6
speakers with the Polk Audio DB5250, which is a 5 1/4 inch
speaker with a separate tweeter and crossover unit.

I had probably upped the amplifier first and initially left the original
speakers in.

Before choosing this speaker, I read **many** reviews that
rated these speakers very very highly.

Don't read reviews, look at the actual unit, listen.

Yes, the reviews pointed out that this size speaker doesn't produce
HUGE bass,

Reviews can be hogwash.

but of course that couldn't be expected from any speaker this size.

What you do not get from that size of loudspeaker is efficiency.

I also installed polyfill in the front dash, in the area above,
below, behind, and all sides of these front speakers. Many
folks reported that this improves the bass response.

Oh, that would depend on a lot of stuff, but yeah, loosely fluffed would
probably clean up the midrange.

RESULTS-- these speakers really seem dull, and dead. I don't
know any better way to explain it. To be more specific, they
seem to have **almost no** bass response.

Too much polyfill probably. I'd try put the ex works stuff back in and
leave some loosely fluffed polyfill, again so as to clean up rhe
midrange.

Once again, I know that they cannot have huge bass, but
I have heard other speakers of this size that have three
times the bass response.

Bass response is not just about speaker size.

Equally puzzling, the tweeters themselves actually distort
the music. When I say distorted, I mean fairly strong
distortion, on some music passages. They don't seem to distort
all the time, but they are significantly distorted.

Which probably means that the undersize amp is clipping.

I guess there are several possibilities:

1. Bad HU, causing distortion in the highs.

Wrong wording, it may well be OK, but underpowerered. Two Skoda's back
in time I did some impulse shopping because a new electronics mart had
Sony 3 X 30 watts RMS in 8 ohm amplifiers on sale and got two of those.

Another shop had Sony car loudspeakers on sale, so I got a pair of 6 by
9 two-ways with old fashioned cone tweeters for the rear shelf and a
pair of 5" with old fashioned cone tweeters for the front doors, made a
new rear shelf from 16 mm plywood covered with carpet and fed the amps
from the ex works cassette radio via an attenuator that ensured that the
power amps would not be driven harder than 2 dB from clip.

With the amps under the seats it looked just like a puny underpowered
cassette radio struggling with 4 loudspeakers in an old Skoda, but
played so well that I had entered the car in a play-off if I hadn't
replaced it with another and by looking puny it was "parking lot safe".
Classical music, not a problem, rock not a problem, and no distortion -
the ex works radio sounded great as soon as it only had to deliver
output voltage, but not output amperage. The only drawback was that ear
protection was required to enjoy its full capabilities and to determine
whether the objective not ever clipping had been attained.

Can you guys give me some advice, and/or comments?

First determine whether the cause of distortion is simple clipping.

Yes, I know that any good speaker system will sound better
with an amp. But, nearly all of the user-reviews that I have
read, indicate that these speakers will do a fine job with 18
watts per channel.

That may well be correct. You head units power rating needs to be
re-read, I think you mention its peak musical power in 4 Ohms, ie.
vapour watts.

Also, I think that the improvement from an amp would be mainly
in the bass and mids/ but not sound from the tweeters, right ?

An amplifier that does not clip sounds cleaner in the treble than one
that does clip or limit current5.

Thank you very much for any additional thoughts or ideas.

I don't know your car, other than that you say it has a roll bar, which
probably means that it is a 4 wheel drive somesortofcar. That peticular
brand, make and model tends to be more noisy inside than average
somesortofsalooncar. 6 dB more noise means that you need 4 times the
amplifier power.

I want decent good-quality sound, that I can play medium-loud.

I dig that, it is nice to have it, but it can - ahem - hurt your ears.

I am an older gent, and don't listen to rap , rock, or other
extremely loud music. But, I do know decent sound when I hear
it, and at this point, these speakers don't even
come near what I had hoped for.

Put the old dash speakers back in the dash, power them from the head
unit, move the Polks to the roll bar, rear shelf, whatever that will
work with them, power them from a separate power amp. In many contexts
the key to good sound can be one amp channel pr. loudspeaker. All sorts
of practical issues that I know nothing about, such as the rollbars, the
Polks in question, the car, whatever, can void some or all of the above,
including make the recommendation null and void.

--James--


Regards

Peter Larsen

[Mark D. Zacharias]

Peter Larsen wrote:
James wrote:

Ok, maybe some of you guys can give me some hints as to
why I am not satisfied with the new front speakers in my
1997 Jeep Wrangler.

Nobody can because that is about the difference between expected and
achieved.

Let me start from the beginning. Several months ago
I installed a new HU, the Alpine 9857. This set is
rated at 18 watts per channel, but many folks

boink, I don't like the sound of that many folks, if it is claimed to
have "18 watts pr. channel" then it probably has some 5 to 9 watts pr
channel as amplifier power is normally measured.

consider that a very conservative rating on this particular HU.
I am not running an amp.

Something that delivers 30 watts RMS into the actual speaker load pr.
loudspeaker unit comes to mind.

I purchased an adaptor so that I could replace the front 4 X 6
speakers with the Polk Audio DB5250, which is a 5 1/4 inch
speaker with a separate tweeter and crossover unit.

I had probably upped the amplifier first and initially left the
original speakers in.

Before choosing this speaker, I read **many** reviews that
rated these speakers very very highly.

Don't read reviews, look at the actual unit, listen.

Yes, the reviews pointed out that this size speaker doesn't produce
HUGE bass,

Reviews can be hogwash.

but of course that couldn't be expected from any speaker this size.

What you do not get from that size of loudspeaker is efficiency.

I also installed polyfill in the front dash, in the area above,
below, behind, and all sides of these front speakers. Many
folks reported that this improves the bass response.

Oh, that would depend on a lot of stuff, but yeah, loosely fluffed
would probably clean up the midrange.

RESULTS-- these speakers really seem dull, and dead. I don't
know any better way to explain it. To be more specific, they
seem to have **almost no** bass response.

Too much polyfill probably. I'd try put the ex works stuff back in and
leave some loosely fluffed polyfill, again so as to clean up rhe
midrange.

Once again, I know that they cannot have huge bass, but
I have heard other speakers of this size that have three
times the bass response.

Bass response is not just about speaker size.

Equally puzzling, the tweeters themselves actually distort
the music. When I say distorted, I mean fairly strong
distortion, on some music passages. They don't seem to distort
all the time, but they are significantly distorted.

Which probably means that the undersize amp is clipping.

I guess there are several possibilities:

1. Bad HU, causing distortion in the highs.

Wrong wording, it may well be OK, but underpowerered. Two Skoda's back
in time I did some impulse shopping because a new electronics mart had
Sony 3 X 30 watts RMS in 8 ohm amplifiers on sale and got two of
those.

Another shop had Sony car loudspeakers on sale, so I got a pair of 6
by 9 two-ways with old fashioned cone tweeters for the rear shelf and
a pair of 5" with old fashioned cone tweeters for the front doors,
made a new rear shelf from 16 mm plywood covered with carpet and fed
the amps from the ex works cassette radio via an attenuator that
ensured that the power amps would not be driven harder than 2 dB from
clip.

With the amps under the seats it looked just like a puny underpowered
cassette radio struggling with 4 loudspeakers in an old Skoda, but
played so well that I had entered the car in a play-off if I hadn't
replaced it with another and by looking puny it was "parking lot
safe". Classical music, not a problem, rock not a problem, and no
distortion - the ex works radio sounded great as soon as it only had
to deliver output voltage, but not output amperage. The only drawback
was that ear protection was required to enjoy its full capabilities
and to determine whether the objective not ever clipping had been
attained.

Can you guys give me some advice, and/or comments?

First determine whether the cause of distortion is simple clipping.

Yes, I know that any good speaker system will sound better
with an amp. But, nearly all of the user-reviews that I have
read, indicate that these speakers will do a fine job with 18
watts per channel.

That may well be correct. You head units power rating needs to be
re-read, I think you mention its peak musical power in 4 Ohms, ie.
vapour watts.

Also, I think that the improvement from an amp would be mainly
in the bass and mids/ but not sound from the tweeters, right ?

An amplifier that does not clip sounds cleaner in the treble than one
that does clip or limit current5.

Thank you very much for any additional thoughts or ideas.

I don't know your car, other than that you say it has a roll bar,
which probably means that it is a 4 wheel drive somesortofcar. That
peticular brand, make and model tends to be more noisy inside than
average somesortofsalooncar. 6 dB more noise means that you need 4
times the amplifier power.

I want decent good-quality sound, that I can play medium-loud.

I dig that, it is nice to have it, but it can - ahem - hurt your ears.

I am an older gent, and don't listen to rap , rock, or other
extremely loud music. But, I do know decent sound when I hear
it, and at this point, these speakers don't even
come near what I had hoped for.

Put the old dash speakers back in the dash, power them from the head
unit, move the Polks to the roll bar, rear shelf, whatever that will
work with them, power them from a separate power amp. In many contexts
the key to good sound can be one amp channel pr. loudspeaker. All
sorts of practical issues that I know nothing about, such as the
rollbars, the Polks in question, the car, whatever, can void some or
all of the above, including make the recommendation null and void.

--James--


Regards

Peter Larsen

Don't forget bridged outputs, which this almost certainly is. Figure around
15 watts per channel real-world.

Mark Z.

[Richard Crowley]

"end_is_near1" wrote ...
It's "your" sound, not "you" sound. When did this grammatical
.. cancer begin to grow? One sees it everywhere.

Are you getting Usenet service in some other dimension
or universe where they don't have typos? Congratulations,
you have contacted falible human civilization. Try to act
humble so that we don't have reason to flame/plonk you.

[paul packer]

On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 19:07:32 -0800, "Richard Crowley"
wrote:

"end_is_near1" wrote ...
It's "your" sound, not "you" sound. When did this grammatical
. cancer begin to grow? One sees it everywhere.

Are you getting Usenet service in some other dimension
or universe where they don't have typos? Congratulations,
you have contacted falible human civilization. Try to act
humble so that we don't have reason to flame/plonk you.

It is however an oft recurring typo. I can forgive someone for
believing the usage had changed overnight.

[George M. Middius]

paul packer said:

It's "your" sound, not "you" sound. When did this grammatical
. cancer begin to grow? One sees it everywhere.

It is however an oft recurring typo. I can forgive someone for
believing the usage had changed overnight.

Grammar geeks get no respect.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Karl Uppiano]

"end_is_near1" wrote in message
...


"Geoff" wrote in message
...
James wrote:

I also installed polyfill in the front dash, in the area above, below,
behind, and all sides of these front speakers. Many folks reported
that this improves the bass response.

Filling the space with 'polyfill' may be what killed you sound.


geoff

It's "your" sound, not "you" sound. When did this grammatical cancer
begin to grow? One sees it everywhere.

That seems to be a common typo with me. I know better, and the spell-checker
doesn't flag it. Life sucks that way.

[paul packer]

On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 03:52:02 GMT, "Karl Uppiano"
wrote:


"end_is_near1" wrote in message
...


"Geoff" wrote in message
...
James wrote:

I also installed polyfill in the front dash, in the area above, below,
behind, and all sides of these front speakers. Many folks reported
that this improves the bass response.

Filling the space with 'polyfill' may be what killed you sound.


geoff

It's "your" sound, not "you" sound. When did this grammatical cancer
begin to grow? One sees it everywhere.

That seems to be a common typo with me. I know better, and the spell-checker
doesn't flag it. Life sucks that way.

Imagine you're a monk in a medieval monastery copying out a precious
manuscript, with no room for errors. Bring careful attention to bear
whilst re-reading your text, and only then hit "Send Now"....

It's hard to believe, but there was a time before spell checkers. :-)

[Richard Crowley]

"paul packer" wrote ...
Imagine you're a monk in a medieval monastery copying out a precious
manuscript, with no room for errors. Bring careful attention to bear
whilst re-reading your text, and only then hit "Send Now"....

It's hard to believe, but there was a time before spell checkers. :-)


Actually, I believe there were specialized jobs at the scriptoriums
for monks who just did the ancient equivalent of spell-checking and
running check-sums, etc. :-)

[David Martel]

Paul,

Important documents, yes even scripture do suffer from errors. A well
known example is the comment that it's harder for a rich man to get into
heaven than for a "camel" to pass through the eye of a needle. Someone
dropped the (camel) hair rope from the expression.

Dave M.

[paul packer]

On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 17:51:06 GMT, "David Martel"
wrote:

Paul,

Important documents, yes even scripture do suffer from errors. A well
known example is the comment that it's harder for a rich man to get into
heaven than for a "camel" to pass through the eye of a needle. Someone
dropped the (camel) hair rope from the expression.

Dave M.

Ah, but the meaning got through the eye of the needle though.

[paul packer]

On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 08:51:21 -0800, "Richard Crowley"
wrote:

"paul packer" wrote ...
Imagine you're a monk in a medieval monastery copying out a precious
manuscript, with no room for errors. Bring careful attention to bear
whilst re-reading your text, and only then hit "Send Now"....

It's hard to believe, but there was a time before spell checkers. :-)


Actually, I believe there were specialized jobs at the scriptoriums
for monks who just did the ancient equivalent of spell-checking and
running check-sums, etc. :-)

Do you think you may have been one of them?

[George M. Middius]

paul packer said:

Important documents, yes even scripture do suffer from errors. A well
known example is the comment that it's harder for a rich man to get into
heaven than for a "camel" to pass through the eye of a needle. Someone
dropped the (camel) hair rope from the expression.

Ah, but the meaning got through the eye of the needle though.

Not really. When I heard the expression about somebody trying to get a
camel through, I immediately dismissed it as nonsense on the same level
with the story about Jonah or the one about the snake and the apple. Pure
hogwash, that is, without a shred of redeeming value to compensate for the
ridiculousness.

I did have the good fortune not to be brainwashed with christian dogma from
an early age. Those who were not so fortunate continue to have problems
differentiating reality from fantasy even at ages well past the threshold
of adulthood.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Mr.T]

"David Martel" wrote in message
hlink.net...
Important documents, yes even scripture do suffer from errors. A well
known example is the comment that it's harder for a rich man to get into
heaven than for a "camel" to pass through the eye of a needle. Someone
dropped the (camel) hair rope from the expression.

I'm amazed that you were there to know exactly what was said :-)

MrT.

[paul packer]

On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 19:43:02 -0500, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:

Those who were not so fortunate continue to have problems
differentiating reality from fantasy even at ages well past the threshold
of adulthood.

Can we expect a list of names?

[paul packer]

On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 12:15:41 +1100, "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:


"David Martel" wrote in message
thlink.net...
Important documents, yes even scripture do suffer from errors. A well
known example is the comment that it's harder for a rich man to get into
heaven than for a "camel" to pass through the eye of a needle. Someone
dropped the (camel) hair rope from the expression.

I'm amazed that you were there to know exactly what was said :-)

MrT.

That's not as amazing as that minidisc players sound really good, Mr.
T. :-)

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 30, 11:08 pm, (paul packer) wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 19:43:02 -0500, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:

Those who were not so fortunate continue to have problems
differentiating reality from fantasy even at ages well past the threshold
of adulthood.

Can we expect a list of names?

George probably won't want to list some of them.

Out of pity.:-)

[Laurence Payne]

On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 19:43:02 -0500, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:

Important documents, yes even scripture do suffer from errors. A well
known example is the comment that it's harder for a rich man to get into
heaven than for a "camel" to pass through the eye of a needle. Someone
dropped the (camel) hair rope from the expression.

Ah, but the meaning got through the eye of the needle though.

Not really. When I heard the expression about somebody trying to get a
camel through, I immediately dismissed it as nonsense on the same level
with the story about Jonah or the one about the snake and the apple. Pure
hogwash, that is, without a shred of redeeming value to compensate for the
ridiculousness.

I did have the good fortune not to be brainwashed with christian dogma from
an early age. Those who were not so fortunate continue to have problems
differentiating reality from fantasy even at ages well past the threshold
of adulthood.

And there's another opinion, that the "Eye of a needle" referred to
the narrow gate in a city wall.

Both pieces of sophistry are unnecessary. A real camel and a real
needle provide a perfectly good humorous example of an impossible act.

[Peter Larsen]

"Mark D. Zacharias" wrote:

[my comment]

if it is claimed to have "18 watts pr. channel" then it
probably has some 5 to 9 watts pr channel as amplifier power
is normally measured.

Don't forget bridged outputs, which this almost certainly is.
Figure around 15 watts per channel real-world.

"Music Power" perhaps, but RMS in 4 Ohms, I still think 9 is more like
it but you well be right. It is only about a couple of dB's and the
"treble distortion" as described still points at simple amplifier
clipping as the first concern with the actual setup.
I have also been wondering whether those defunct old loudspeakers in his
roll-bar could be partially or complete short circuited and still in
circuit. But we may have lost the OP in the feud about illitteracy in
the US ....

Mark Z.


Regards

Peter Larsen

[Peter Larsen]

paul packer wrote:

Imagine you're a monk in a medieval monastery copying out a precious
manuscript, with no room for errors. Bring careful attention to bear
whilst re-reading your text, and only then hit "Send Now"....

It's hard to believe, but there was a time before spell checkers. :-)

You never expect the spanish inqusition, do you?

O;-)

There were of course also later methods of spell checking prior to the
"new learning concept" of not posing to great demands on the pupils
leading to functional illiteracy being on the increase rather than on
the decrease.

Regards

Peter Larsen

[George M. Middius]

paul packer said:

Those who were not so fortunate continue to have problems
differentiating reality from fantasy even at ages well past the threshold
of adulthood.

Can we expect a list of names?

No, sorry. Mostly those religious nutters are so stupid that they forget to
breathe, and then BAM! it's all over for them.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Eeyore]

"George M. Middius" wrote:

reilgion ??

Graham

[David Martel]

I'm amazed that you were there to know exactly what was said :-)

I wasn't. But there are Bibles from before and after the error was made.
A good friend of mine taught new testament while a grad student in Religion.

Dave M.

[Laurence Payne]

On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 18:10:05 GMT, "David Martel"
wrote:

I wasn't. But there are Bibles from before and after the error was made.
A good friend of mine taught new testament while a grad student in Religion.

It needs TEACHING? Surely the Word Of God requires no human
interpretation or modification? Don't tell me you get to CHOOSE
which bits are to be taken literally and which
are...er.....unfortunate errors? :-)

[David Martel]

Dragged out the Bible and looked up the camel quote. It's Luke 18:24 ff
and also Matthew 19:23 ff.
Oh well, seems unlikely that the exact same error would be made twice so
the camel story is bogus.

Dave M.

[Neil Green]

"Peter Larsen" wrote
in message ...
paul packer wrote:

Imagine you're a monk in a medieval monastery
copying out a precious
manuscript, with no room for errors. Bring careful
attention to bear
whilst re-reading your text, and only then hit
"Send Now"....

It's hard to believe, but there was a time before
spell checkers. :-)

You never expect the spanish inqusition, do you?

How could you?
It's chief weapon is surprise.


O;-)

There were of course also later methods of spell
checking prior to the
"new learning concept" of not posing to great
demands on the pupils
leading to functional illiteracy being on the
increase rather than on
the decrease.

Regards

Peter Larsen

[paul packer]

On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 19:43:16 GMT, "David Martel"
wrote:


Dragged out the Bible and looked up the camel quote. It's Luke 18:24 ff
and also Matthew 19:23 ff.
Oh well, seems unlikely that the exact same error would be made twice so
the camel story is bogus.

Dave M.

Why did I never expect to see a header in RAO entitled, "I'm wrong."

Not that's a first!

[paul packer]

On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 14:52:25 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:



"George M. Middius" wrote:

reilgion ??

Graham

George has made a mistake. Everyone get out your diaries.

[George M. Middius]

paul packer said:

George has made a mistake.

You're the one who's talking to Poopie B'ar.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[paul packer]

On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 18:10:05 GMT, "David Martel"
wrote:


I'm amazed that you were there to know exactly what was said :-)

I wasn't.

Now that has really shocked me.

[paul packer]

On Thu, 1 Feb 2007 12:53:17 +1100, "Neil Green"
wrote:


"Peter Larsen" wrote
in message ...
paul packer wrote:

Imagine you're a monk in a medieval monastery
copying out a precious
manuscript, with no room for errors. Bring careful
attention to bear
whilst re-reading your text, and only then hit
"Send Now"....

It's hard to believe, but there was a time before
spell checkers. :-)

You never expect the spanish inqusition, do you?

How could you?
It's chief weapon is surprise.

You mean it's still around?

[paul packer]

On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 14:33:10 +0100, Peter Larsen
wrote:

paul packer wrote:

Imagine you're a monk in a medieval monastery copying out a precious
manuscript, with no room for errors. Bring careful attention to bear
whilst re-reading your text, and only then hit "Send Now"....

It's hard to believe, but there was a time before spell checkers. :-)

You never expect the spanish inqusition, do you?

O;-)

There were of course also later methods of spell checking prior to the
"new learning concept" of not posing to great demands on the pupils
leading to functional illiteracy being on the increase rather than on
the decrease.

Regards

Peter Larsen

Spending time in schools, not to mention Usenet, I've discovered that
functional illiteracy is an epidemic rivalled perhaps only by
diabeties. And in terms of its effect on one's quality of life, it's
more serious.

Lately I've been getting questions from potential buyers of my Ebay
items that I simple can't fathom. George will tell you I'm getting
doddery, but I say people--not all young--are totally losing command
of the language. It's frightening.

[paul packer]

On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 23:59:26 -0500, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:



paul packer said:

George has made a mistake.

You're the one who's talking to Poopie B'ar.

And you're the one who's getting doddery. Nah nah...nah nah nah..

Oh never mind...

[Mark D. Zacharias]

Peter Larsen wrote:
"Mark D. Zacharias" wrote:

[my comment]

if it is claimed to have "18 watts pr. channel" then it
probably has some 5 to 9 watts pr channel as amplifier power
is normally measured.

Don't forget bridged outputs, which this almost certainly is.
Figure around 15 watts per channel real-world.

"Music Power" perhaps, but RMS in 4 Ohms, I still think 9 is more like
it but you well be right. It is only about a couple of dB's and the
"treble distortion" as described still points at simple amplifier
clipping as the first concern with the actual setup.
I have also been wondering whether those defunct old loudspeakers in
his roll-bar could be partially or complete short circuited and still
in circuit. But we may have lost the OP in the feud about illitteracy
in the US ....

Mark Z.


Regards

Peter Larsen

Bridged output amps can get up to 4 times the RMS power of an unbalanced
"normal" amp since power varies to the square of the voltage or current. If
the current is not significantly limited, such as in a car setup, then twice
the signal swing results in 4x the power. I was just rounding off and
including a "fudge factor" in my mental calculation to account for losses in
wiring, etc.

Mark Z.

[Arny Krueger]

"Mark D. Zacharias" wrote in
message
. net

Don't forget bridged outputs, which this almost certainly
is. Figure around 15 watts per channel real-world.

A good bridged carsound amp running off a proper auto electrical system
should be able to put out a clean 14-15 watts into a 4 ohm load. Usual rule
of thumb is that it will clip above 4 volts rms.

[George M. Middius]

paul packer said:

Lately I've been getting questions from potential buyers of my Ebay
items that I simple can't fathom. George will tell you I'm getting
doddery, but I say people--not all young--are totally losing command
of the language. It's frightening.

ebay can be a shocking experience. I've had people ask whether the item in
the picture is the one I'm selling, whether "three" really means "three",
if I'd be willing to ship a pair of 40-lb speakers to Hong Kong, and more.
And people's grammar and spelling are sub-Usenet in quality. Maybe even
sub-Krooglish.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.