4 18s in a wall, 94 astro

[NoCoSPL 10+ year member]

his entire complex would be outside yelling after all their pictures fell off the wall from doing a 30 sec bass race. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/omg.gif.05aa02c3095d6ce9338996654eca0863.gif in his garage with one door open.

That doesn't answer my question.

 

[sub-FATHER 10+ year member]

That doesn't answer my question.

yeah we will go to a parking lot somewhere

 

[PV Audio 5,000+ posts]

What the hell do you think SOUND is? Sound is PRESSURE WAVES. They are one in the same. If one pressure wave is stronger than the others, it will overpower them.
Since you seem to be so knowledgeable on the topic, please enlighten us as to how your subs playing at 155 dB and your mids playing at 120 dB will add up to with a "real" spl meter. What would the overall score be?

Go ahead and play pink noise with an RTA going and prepare to be severly disappointed. Odds are you'll start smoking mids and tweeters in the mid 130 dB range.

I'm completely dumbfounded that you're still arguing this when you clearly have no fucking idea what you are talking about.

He's saying that the TL is inaccurate because it measures pressure only and not loudness. There is no such thing as a loudness meter because someone who is deaf would not hear anything while they would perceive the same change in acoustic pressure. Loudness is a purely subjective measurement based on the ear's affinity for midrange frequencies. That is why they use weighted meters to get closest to a "true" reading, but that is only used for noise applications and not pure pressure readings which is what you NEED, not want, but NEED when measuring audio low frequency SPL. If you used a highly weighted meter at competitions, you'd score so lowly that people would be running semi's full of subs just to score the same. It's also why dB charts are misleading and aren't usable for us because jet engines and rifle blasts are at higher frequencies which are perceived as louder to the ear anyway. A rifle going off is not creating 170dB of sound pressure, it's creating 170dB of WEIGHTED sound pressure, or perceived sound pressure.

 

[tommyk90 5,000+ posts]

He's saying that the TL is inaccurate because it measures pressure only and not loudness. There is no such thing as a loudness meter because someone who is deaf would not hear anything while they would perceive the same change in acoustic pressure. Loudness is a purely subjective measurement based on the ear's affinity for midrange frequencies. That is why they use weighted meters to get closest to a "true" reading, but that is only used for noise applications and not pure pressure readings which is what you NEED, not want, but NEED when measuring audio low frequency SPL. If you used a highly weighted meter at competitions, you'd score so lowly that people would be running semi's full of subs just to score the same. It's also why dB charts are misleading and aren't usable for us because jet engines and rifle blasts are at higher frequencies which are perceived as louder to the ear anyway. A rifle going off is not creating 170dB of sound pressure, it's creating 170dB of WEIGHTED sound pressure, or perceived sound pressure.

I hate those comparison charts. People really think their stereo is louder than a 747 taking off. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/crazy.gif.c13912c32de98515d3142759a824dae7.gif

Like I said, if he wants to measure pressure across the entire frequency range, play some pink noise with an RTA going and watch your mids and tweeters go up in smoke while the meter is only at 135 db.

I understand what you are saying completely. 130 dB at 5000 hz is MUCH more painful than 150 dB at 40 hz, which is why the higher frequencies are weighted differently.

Apparently this is too much for him to comprehend.

 

[sub-FATHER 10+ year member]

I hope it's comfy in that magical world of yours, because it looks like you're stuck there permanently. You haven't the faintest idea as to what you're talking. Sound pressure, sound intensity and loudness are NOT the same thing, nor are they interchangable and nor do they have any relationship between one another. You're using the three things as though they are the same thing.
Sound pressure is the dB score that you read on the meter. It measures the SPL level of the car. The SPL level is based on the highest SPL at a given frequency because unless two produced frequencies are close, they will not add together. They only add to make the maximum gain when they are producing the same frequency which is why you do NOT see people using mids and tweeters in competitions along with their subwoofers because they are a complete waste of amplifier power that could be driving larger transducers. This IS how it works, it's not my theory, it is the truth, it's science, it's fundamental to noise control and other fields of engineering acoustics. Reference? The Master Handbook of Acoustics by Alton Everest. I suggest you read it.

Loudness is what you're talking about and is merely a human perception of sound pressure. Midrange frequencies are interpreted as being louder as the ear is naturally attuned with a bandpass response to pick up the middle frequencies at a higher sensitivity than the lower and higher frequencies. This is a fundamental concept of psychoacoustics. Where did I learn this? The Psychology of Hearing by Brian Moore who is a Phd of psychoacoustics.

Sound intensity, in case you're wondering, is the intensity of sound at a given area. It is defined as the integral of one period of a waveform of the sound pressure multiplied by the velocity of the air. The terms intensity and pressure are not the same because in reality, they cannot be derived from one another. Saying "intensity of pressure" is a complete misnomer along the same lines as "the volts of the resistance". This is from the Textbook of Environmental Engineering by P. Venugopala Rao.

I have cited all of my information by professors and doctors of the fields in which they study, and you are citing your own "logic". I wonder who is more accurate?

people like me, einstien, tesla!!!! people that go against the grain because they believed in faults of logic. funny too. as of just recently E=mc2 has been disproven as well. its amazing how how things that are set in stone change.... and just like that too...

its good to think, but you say you know! i have said from the beginning that this is my theory. sorry i havnt proven it yet.

 

[PV Audio 5,000+ posts]

people like me, einstien, tesla!!!! people that go against the grain because they believed in faults of logic. funny too. as of just recently E=mc2 has been disproven as well. its amazing how how things that are set in stone change.... and just like that too... its good to think, but you say you know! i have said from the beginning that this is my theory. sorry i havnt proven it yet.

Comparing yourself to Einstein and Tesla is possibly the greatest case of hubris I've ever seen in my life. You are just wrong and confused, while Einstein and Tesla had theories. You're talking about one thing and using it in the context of something else, nothing more. We tried to tell you that, but you didn't realize it. It will never be proved that loudness is somehow related to SPL because it isn't. Its how you perceive sound, so if you want to say that your 16 mids will make your setup seem LOUDER, then yes. Will it meter higher? Not in the slightest unless your mids are moving more air at the frequencies that your subs are. Just quit digging your hole and admit that you're wrong. I've been doing it for years, and I turned out okay in the end //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

 

[PV Audio 5,000+ posts]

And no, E=mc^2 was NOT disproven by anyone. It, as of November 16 2009, has yet to be disproven for 104 years. Stories you might have heard about students in lectures or people theorizing are false. It would be one of the single greatest scientific breakthroughs of all time and everyone would know about it.

 

[sub-FATHER 10+ year member]

Although Einstein's name is closely linked with the celebrated relation E=mc2 between mass and energy, a critical examination of the more than half dozen “proofs” of this relation that Einstein produced over a span of forty years reveals that all these proofs suffer from mistakes. Einstein introduced unjustified assumptions, committed fatal errors in logic, or adopted low-speed, restrictive approximations. He never succeeded in producing a valid general proof applicable to a realistic system with arbitrarily large internal speeds. The first such general proof was produced by Max Laue in 1911 (for “closed” systems with a time-independent energy–momentum tensor) and it was generalized by Felix Klein in 1918 (for arbitrary time-dependent “closed” systems).

 

[sub-FATHER 10+ year member]

E = MC2:

E [THE ELECTION] ... EQUALS ... MC [MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE] ... SQUARED.

Obama is a Muslim and a socialist who is hiding both of these facts.

Anyone who heard Wright's sermons or who has seen BLT's founding philosopher the insane and racist James Cone on Moyer's knows this theology is as Christian and Islam is - ands has more in common with Farrakhan's Nation Of Islam than Christianity.

Obama and his relationship with Ayers and Khalidi and Wright and Farrakhan and The New Party and Frank Mashall Davis and his mother's politics all reveal who he REALLY is - who he is when nobody was looking -- BEFORE anyone was looking. He is a left-wing RADICAL.

Don't fall for the campaign BS that Obama is somehow now a liberal Democrat. Obama is to the left of Feignold and Kucinich and Saunders and Maxine Waters and Barney Frank.

OBAMA IS A MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE TWICE OVER. SQUARED.

A socialist and a Muslim. A BAATHIST FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES.

THE AMERICAN NASSER.

THE AMERICAN SADDAM HUSSEIN.

YES: BENEATH ALL THE CAMPAIGN BULLSHIT AND LIES, OBAMA IS REALLY PROMOTER OF SOCIALISM AND ISLAM AND IS THEREFORE REALLY A BAATHIST.

VOTE ACCORDINGLY.

 

[sub-FATHER 10+ year member]

Comparing yourself to Einstein and Tesla is possibly the greatest case of hubris I've ever seen in my life. You are just wrong and confused, while Einstein and Tesla had theories. You're talking about one thing and using it in the context of something else, nothing more. We tried to tell you that, but you didn't realize it. It will never be proved that loudness is somehow related to SPL because it isn't. Its how you perceive sound, so if you want to say that your 16 mids will make your setup seem LOUDER, then yes. Will it meter higher? Not in the slightest unless your mids are moving more air at the frequencies that your subs are. Just quit digging your hole and admit that you're wrong. I've been doing it for years, and I turned out okay in the end //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

im digging for CHINA:laugh:

 

[TnT_Sounds 10+ year member]

Comparing yourself to Einstein and Tesla is possibly the greatest case of hubris I've ever seen in my life. You are just wrong and confused, while Einstein and Tesla had theories. You're talking about one thing and using it in the context of something else, nothing more. We tried to tell you that, but you didn't realize it. It will never be proved that loudness is somehow related to SPL because it isn't. Its how you perceive sound, so if you want to say that your 16 mids will make your setup seem LOUDER, then yes. Will it meter higher? Not in the slightest unless your mids are moving more air at the frequencies that your subs are. Just quit digging your hole and admit that you're wrong. I've been doing it for years, and I turned out okay in the end //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

I think I will sig that //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/fyi.gif.9f1f679348da7204ce960cfc74bca8e0.gif

 

[TnT_Sounds 10+ year member]

Although Einstein's name is closely linked with the celebrated relation E=mc2 between mass and energy, a critical examination of the more than half dozen “proofs” of this relation that Einstein produced over a span of forty years reveals that all these proofs suffer from mistakes. Einstein introduced unjustified assumptions, committed fatal errors in logic, or adopted low-speed, restrictive approximations. He never succeeded in producing a valid general proof applicable to a realistic system with arbitrarily large internal speeds.
The first such general proof was produced by Max Laue in 1911 (for “closed” systems with a time-independent energy–momentum tensor) and it was generalized by Felix Klein in 1918 (for arbitrary time-dependent “closed” systems).

Right there is your proof. Although AE wasn't the one to provide it, it was still proven according to Max Laue

 

[TnT_Sounds 10+ year member]

E = MC2:
E [THE ELECTION] ... EQUALS ... MC [MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE] ... SQUARED.

Obama is a Muslim and a socialist who is hiding both of these facts.

Anyone who heard Wright's sermons or who has seen BLT's founding philosopher the insane and racist James Cone on Moyer's knows this theology is as Christian and Islam is - ands has more in common with Farrakhan's Nation Of Islam than Christianity.

Obama and his relationship with Ayers and Khalidi and Wright and Farrakhan and The New Party and Frank Mashall Davis and his mother's politics all reveal who he REALLY is - who he is when nobody was looking -- BEFORE anyone was looking. He is a left-wing RADICAL.

Don't fall for the campaign BS that Obama is somehow now a liberal Democrat. Obama is to the left of Feignold and Kucinich and Saunders and Maxine Waters and Barney Frank.

OBAMA IS A MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE TWICE OVER. SQUARED.

A socialist and a Muslim. A BAATHIST FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES.

THE AMERICAN NASSER.

THE AMERICAN SADDAM HUSSEIN.

YES: BENEATH ALL THE CAMPAIGN BULLSHIT AND LIES, OBAMA IS REALLY PROMOTER OF SOCIALISM AND ISLAM AND IS THEREFORE REALLY A BAATHIST.VOTE ACCORDINGLY.

I agree with the bold statements //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/fyi.gif.9f1f679348da7204ce960cfc74bca8e0.gif

 

[MakeshiftAudio 10+ year member]

God, this fuck is worse than McIntosh. In the way that he doesn't back up his stupid claims and has no idea what he's talking about. Better yet he proves himself wrong. Only comparison is that he argues like he knows he's right.

Who do I need to contact to pay? :greed:

Pardon my rather unprofessional like attitude, but this is just too much.

PS@PV: Waves of different frequencies do add, only at the point at which they do line up. Play with just something like Fruity Loops with a sine wave generator and you'll see that it will equal 2A, but not for long enough or often enough to matter or effect the measurement, is what you're saying. Also, when adding two different level sounds, the one of the lower level would have to follow the logarithmic operation. Ie 3dB = 2x as loud, 6dB is 4x as loud, 9dB is 8x as loud, so on and so forth. So essentially lower volume waves would not effect it as much either way. Mathematically, adding sound pressure would be given by 10log(10^(L1/10)+10^(L2/10)+10^(Ln/10)). Ln is measured in Pa.

 

[TnT_Sounds 10+ year member]

God, this fuck is worse than McIntosh. In the way that he doesn't back up his stupid claims and has no idea what he's talking about. Better yet he proves himself wrong. Only comparison is that he argues like he knows he's right.
Who do I need to contact to pay? :greed:

I personaly think McIntosh was worse:crap:

This guy just seems to be shootin up Ultracet:veryhapp: