Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="audioholic" data-source="post: 892892" data-attributes="member: 549629">Wow another thread you are trying to flame me in... you&#039;re like some little fly buzzing around my ears. I just wanted to chime in with my wisdom eh? *sigh* Guess I have to spell it out for you...To which you replied:Which is true, to an extent. But if you want to discuss what&#039;s off topic, box dependancy is. We aren&#039;t comparing boxes, he wants to compare raw drivers and their capabilities. If you want to discuss which will probably get lower in terms of cone area (as was suggested a 15 would get lower due to cone area), in fact the four 10&#039;s will have MORE CONE AREA and thus in those terms will likely play lower. Even Jack&#039;s response to you implied this confuses him:And yet now you are trying to imply Im just being a blowhard know it all by explaining that you actually would add the cone area&#039;s together in an array of smaller speakers when comparing to one larger one? Jack even said later that this is the exact point he was confused on:So... if you dont get the correlation between your conversation with Jack, and my comments, its not because there wasn&#039;t one, its because you simply could not see it. Or, maybe you just wanted to take a cheap and unjustifiable shot at me. *shrug*</blockquote>

[QUOTE="audioholic, post: 892892, member: 549629"] Wow another thread you are trying to flame me in... you're like some little fly buzzing around my ears. I just wanted to chime in with my wisdom eh? *sigh* Guess I have to spell it out for you... To which you replied: Which is true, to an extent. But if you want to discuss what's off topic, box dependancy is. We aren't comparing boxes, he wants to compare raw drivers and their capabilities. If you want to discuss which will probably get lower in terms of cone area (as was suggested a 15 would get lower due to cone area), in fact the four 10's will have MORE CONE AREA and thus in those terms will likely play lower. Even Jack's response to you implied this confuses him: And yet now you are trying to imply Im just being a blowhard know it all by explaining that you actually would add the cone area's together in an array of smaller speakers when comparing to one larger one? Jack even said later that this is the exact point he was confused on: So... if you dont get the correlation between your conversation with Jack, and my comments, its not because there wasn't one, its because you simply could not see it. Or, maybe you just wanted to take a cheap and unjustifiable shot at me. *shrug* [/QUOTE]

Verification