Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="jellyfish420" data-source="post: 942067" data-attributes="member: 555729">i emailed mike @ soundsplinter and this was the response:Both the 3.25 cu ft and the 2 cu ft net volumes will work, but in allhonesty the response difference between the two will be quite minimal.Attached you will find the leap graph for the RL-p15 exhibiting therelativedifferences.The Butterworth (magenta solid) box is 2.1 cu ft net volume.The Bessel (tan dashed) box is 3.55 cu ft net volume.The Enhanced Q (green dotted) is 0.95 cu ft net volume.Essentially, you are asking for a comparison between the ButterworthandBessel alginments, which as evidenced in the attached image, followeachother quite closely.&nbsp; I do not think that a 2 cu ft box will be muchmorepeaky than a 3.25 cu ft box at all to tell you the truth.<a href="http://www.imageshack.us" target="_blank"><img src="http://img280.echo.cx/img280/2130/rlp15sealedgraph7bn.gif" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></a></blockquote>

[QUOTE="jellyfish420, post: 942067, member: 555729"] i emailed mike @ soundsplinter and this was the response: Both the 3.25 cu ft and the 2 cu ft net volumes will work, but in all honesty the response difference between the two will be quite minimal. Attached you will find the leap graph for the RL-p15 exhibiting the relative differences. The Butterworth (magenta solid) box is 2.1 cu ft net volume. The Bessel (tan dashed) box is 3.55 cu ft net volume. The Enhanced Q (green dotted) is 0.95 cu ft net volume. Essentially, you are asking for a comparison between the Butterworth and Bessel alginments, which as evidenced in the attached image, follow each other quite closely. I do not think that a 2 cu ft box will be much more peaky than a 3.25 cu ft box at all to tell you the truth. [URL="http://www.imageshack.us"][IMG]http://img280.echo.cx/img280/2130/rlp15sealedgraph7bn.gif[/IMG][/URL] [/QUOTE]

Verification