Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Warbleed" data-source="post: 2310008" data-attributes="member: 549898">No one misread that. How exactly do you know that no FEA was used in the design of that surround? I don&#039;t know that a competent surround designed for 4&quot;+ p2p could even be done WITHOUT FEA, and as I indicated before, I sincerely doubt that that you had much of a valid basis for making this claim in the first place.It would seem, based upon all that you have said thus far, that the only reasons you deduced that they didn&#039;t use FEA were:1) You think they ordered parts randomly out of a chinese build house catalog2) The surround dimples at high excursion3) (deduced) If a surround dimples at high excursion, it must not have been properly designed using FEA.Conclusion: ED&#039;s surround was designed without FEA.Now neither of the above reasons which you mentioned in this thread, prove or even suggest your conclusion to be true.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Warbleed, post: 2310008, member: 549898"] No one misread that. How exactly do you know that no FEA was used in the design of that surround? I don't know that a competent surround designed for 4"+ p2p could even be done WITHOUT FEA, and as I indicated before, I sincerely doubt that that you had much of a valid basis for making this claim in the first place. It would seem, based upon all that you have said thus far, that the only reasons you deduced that they didn't use FEA were: 1) You think they ordered parts randomly out of a chinese build house catalog 2) The surround dimples at high excursion 3) (deduced) If a surround dimples at high excursion, it must not have been properly designed using FEA. Conclusion: ED's surround was designed without FEA. Now neither of the above reasons which you mentioned in this thread, prove or even suggest your conclusion to be true. [/QUOTE]

Verification