I Just Hit It From Behind = (

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

Because Audioholic can't help himself. Just watch. Its hilarious.

I guess we see who is following who. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

See.
LMFAO!

Yes, I see you are guilty of that which you accuse me of... following me around just to try and start trouble. But coming from you, its hardly a surprise to me, or anyone else who has spent any regular amount of time on this forum. You said in another thread how sad it was of someone to come share their first certain ****** encounter with strangers on a car audio forum. I suggest its much sadder to see you with 19k posts and you never seem to even discuss car audio. He comes here to share a situation he found important, you just come here to try and pick on people for your own amusement and ego. I think all the smart people here already know which is the really sad situation. Feel free to rebut with a one-liner aimed at trying to upset me, it merely supports everything I say about you.

Cotjones, I meant it when I said Id keep an open mind if you could provide any trustworthy info supporting your stance on multi-sized subs. I dont think I know everything, I learn new stuff here every day. I do however think it will take a lot to convince me of your theory, as Ive read some pretty reliable sources claiming otherwise, and my own knowledge tells me its simply unnecessary to utilize multiple sized speakers to reproduce 2 octaves of material. And yes, Ive been around this hobby a long time now, Ive heard some multi-szed sub systems utilizing more than just crap woofers, enclosures, etc. Ive even heard a few I thought sounded pretty good, but they utilized a relatively complicated xover network and EQ'ing, basically just to say they did it. Anyone serious about making their substage sound accurate and precise does not mess around with mutiple sized drivers, its simply unnecessary. if you want to say it sounded good to you, I wont argue, it obviously did. But I dont see there is any argument when discussing if its necessary, logical based on cost effectiveness or simplicity, or even simply a good idea beyond notoriety.

 

[michaellane 5,000+ posts]

i really like having rear fill from my 6x9's //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/fyi.gif.9f1f679348da7204ce960cfc74bca8e0.gif with the way my front door speakers are located i dont get too much from them unless i lean forward...

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

i really like having rear fill from my 6x9's //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/fyi.gif.9f1f679348da7204ce960cfc74bca8e0.gif with the way my front door speakers are located i dont get too much from them unless i lean forward...

Some vehicles, with large rear spaces or poor allowable front speaker placement, can show benefits from rear-fill. But true rear-fill is bandpassed and atenuated so as to not divert attention form the front stage, and to minimize interferance with the front stage output. We could discuss if rear speakers playing full range is 'better' or not, but that's not really the point, as that comes down to personal preference. but in terms of remaining accurate to the original recording, as imo most knowledgeable enthusiasts define 'sound quality', reproducing a 2-channel recording with 4 very audible channels of material just isn't accuracy. Not meaning to offend people who like rear speakers, clearly personal preference plays a large role in building your own stereo, Im merely discussing the technicals of accuracy.

 

[tehWorstest]

Omfg.

 

[michaellane 5,000+ posts]

Some vehicles, with large rear spaces or poor allowable front speaker placement, can show benefits from rear-fill. But true rear-fill is bandpassed and atenuated so as to not divert attention form the front stage, and to minimize interferance with the front stage output. We could discuss if rear speakers playing full range is 'better' or not, but that's not really the point, as that comes down to personal preference. but in terms of remaining accurate to the original recording, as imo most knowledgeable enthusiasts define 'sound quality', reproducing a 2-channel recording with 4 very audible channels of material just isn't accuracy. Not meaning to offend people who like rear speakers, clearly personal preference plays a large role in building your own stereo, Im merely discussing the technicals of accuracy.

i fully understand your point. i do run mine "full range" and i really like it to be honest. im my car i just need it lol

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

Yes, I see you are guilty of that which you accuse me of... following me around just to try and start trouble. But coming from you, its hardly a surprise to me, or anyone else who has spent any regular amount of time on this forum. You said in another thread how sad it was of someone to come share their first certain ****** encounter with strangers on a car audio forum. I suggest its much sadder to see you with 19k posts and you never seem to even discuss car audio. He comes here to share a situation he found important, you just come here to try and pick on people for your own amusement and ego. I think all the smart people here already know which is the really sad situation. Feel free to rebut with a one-liner aimed at trying to upset me, it merely supports everything I say about you.
Cotjones, I meant it when I said Id keep an open mind if you could provide any trustworthy info supporting your stance on multi-sized subs. I dont think I know everything, I learn new stuff here every day. I do however think it will take a lot to convince me of your theory, as Ive read some pretty reliable sources claiming otherwise, and my own knowledge tells me its simply unnecessary to utilize multiple sized speakers to reproduce 2 octaves of material. And yes, Ive been around this hobby a long time now, Ive heard some multi-szed sub systems utilizing more than just crap woofers, enclosures, etc. Ive even heard a few I thought sounded pretty good, but they utilized a relatively complicated xover network and EQ'ing, basically just to say they did it. Anyone serious about making their substage sound accurate and precise does not mess around with mutiple sized drivers, its simply unnecessary. if you want to say it sounded good to you, I wont argue, it obviously did. But I dont see there is any argument when discussing if its necessary, logical based on cost effectiveness or simplicity, or even simply a good idea beyond notoriety.

If this is the case, I don't really know why you are still arguing. I never said it was necessary, indeed it's COMPLETELY unnecessary. If i have said otherwise it was at a point long ago when I knew much less.

My only points were that it could be done, thus it is not fair for you to say with any sort of conviction how my system would've sounded just by looking at a single picture. I've said before maybe I just got lucky to have a relatively flat response. Keep in mind I said "relatively."

There is a certain point at which sound level differentials between frequencies are not very obvious to the ***** ear. Why do you think there is thousands of dollars worth of RTA and SPL equiptment to measure exact levels? Why do we need that stuff if we can just easily discern the difference? We can go by what pleases us but frankly, a lot of people prefer a gigantic peak around 40 hz. to a perfectly flat response.

Preference is... well just that. A preference. To the ear. That Multi-sub setup had a "relatively" flat response. Meaning I never saw it on an RTA but compared to a lot of systems around and most in my home town. it was flatter.

It was MUCH flatter than a friend's 4runner with 2 12" type-x's. While getting WAY louder. That assumption is both by "golden ears" as you said, and a rat shack meter showing (IIRC) a less than 1db difference in my car from 50 to 60 hz. and a more than 3db difference in his! Rat shack, I know but still, just saying

 

[tehWorstest]

If this is the case, I don't really know why you are still arguing. I never said it was necessary, indeed it's COMPLETELY unnecessary. If i have said otherwise it was at a point long ago when I knew much less.
My only points were that it could be done, thus it is not fair for you to say with any sort of conviction how my system would've sounded just by looking at a single picture. I've said before maybe I just got lucky to have a relatively flat response. Keep in mind I said "relatively."

There is a certain point at which sound level differentials between frequencies are not very obvious to the ***** ear. Why do you think there is thousands of dollars worth of RTA and SPL equiptment to measure exact levels? Why do we need that stuff if we can just easily discern the difference? We can go by what pleases us but frankly, a lot of people prefer a gigantic peak around 40 hz. to a perfectly flat response.

Preference is... well just that. A preference. To the ear. That Multi-sub setup had a "relatively" flat response. Meaning I never saw it on an RTA but compared to a lot of systems around and most in my home town. it was flatter.

It was MUCH flatter than a friend's 4runner with 2 12" type-x's. While getting WAY louder. That assumption is both by "golden ears" as you said, and a rat shack meter showing (IIRC) a less than 1db difference in my car from 50 to 60 hz. and a more than 3db difference in his! Rat shack, I know but still, just saying

How are you going to talk about him still argueing when you need the last word.

 

[hatedonmostly 5,000+ posts]

fffffuuuuuh

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

How are you going to talk about him still argueing when you need the last word.

Needing the last word is a moronic concept.

If someone argues a point a rebuttal is logical. The only ones who argue "your just trying to get the last word" are the ones who's logic has holes (that they don't wish discovered). So they encourage the other party to stop the argument before they do discover the truth.

If you have a clear understanding and proof to back up you're logic then it is illogical to stop arguing untill that point is conveyed. Otherwise false information is conveyed.

That said when you are arguing a point proven false, it is logical to concede.

However, all audioholic has done is either dispute viable (however, minimal, evidence.) Or posit an argument as if I was defending it 3 years ago.

In the case the viable evidence is as follows:

1#: my personal testimony including information of the testimony of others.

2#: the physical likelihood that the situation I present is actually true.

3#: the lack of theoretical or empirical evidence that suggests otherwise.

He is arguing on certain fallible principles:

1#: That the person I was 3 years ago was vulnerable to attack as support for an argument.

2#: That I am the same person I was 3 years ago.

3#: That the opinion evidence of several professionals who have a different goal than I, have applicable interests and information in the matter which is ,in essence, subjective. Thus their course of action can be looked at as a model to judge mine by.

4#: that there is any evidence, theoretical or empirical that suggests the point is valid.

Since these premises are obviously flawed in one way or another he is simply finding eddies which he can plant is argument by arguing in a circle. It's like interjecting the question "does your mom know you are gay?" into an argument. All it does is stall the inevitable realization that if your logic was viable, you would be able to present an argument free of fallacy.

 

[tehWorstest]

Needing the last word is a moronic concept.
If someone argues a point a rebuttal is logical. The only ones who argue "your just trying to get the last word" are the ones who's logic has holes (that they don't wish discovered). So they encourage the other party to stop the argument before they do discover the truth.

If you have a clear understanding and proof to back up you're logic then it is illogical to stop arguing untill that point is conveyed. Otherwise false information is conveyed.

That said when you are arguing a point proven false, it is logical to concede.

However, all audioholic has done is either dispute viable (however, minimal, evidence.) Or posit an argument as if I was defending it 3 years ago.

In the case the viable evidence is as follows:

1#: my personal testimony including information of the testimony of others.

2#: the physical likelihood that the situation I present is actually true.

3#: the lack of theoretical or empirical evidence that suggests otherwise.

He is arguing on certain fallible principles:

1#: That the person I was 3 years ago was vulnerable to attack as support for an argument.

2#: That I am the same person I was 3 years ago.

3#: That the opinion evidence of several professionals who have a different goal than I, have applicable interests and information in the matter which is ,in essence, subjective. Thus their course of action can be looked at as a model to judge mine by.

4#: that there is any evidence, theoretical or empirical that suggests the point is valid.

Since these premises are obviously flawed in one way or another he is simply finding eddies which he can plant is argument by arguing in a circle. It's like interjecting the question "does your mom know you are gay?" into an argument. All it does is stall the inevitable realization that if your logic was viable, you would be able to present an argument free of fallacy.

Whats idiotic is that you mistake me for someone who will read more than one sentence of your response, i really dont give a fuck.

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

Whats idiotic is that you mistake me for someone who will read more than one sentence of your response, i really dont give a fuck.

That makes you the idiot, either for not reading responses in a conversation you interjected yourself into, or interjecting yourself into a conversation you had no to wish to participate in.

(There. I made it one sentence so you can comprehend)

 

[tehWorstest]

That makes you the idiot, either for not reading responses in a conversation you interjected yourself into, or interjecting yourself into a conversation you had no to wish to participate in.
(There. I made it one sentence so you can comprehend)

Does that mean your an idiot for putting your conversation into my conversation with the hopes of being an attention whore ??

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

Does that mean your an idiot for putting your conversation into my conversation with the hopes of being an attention whore ??

A thread does not equal a conversation. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/fyi.gif.9f1f679348da7204ce960cfc74bca8e0.gif

And you shouldn't even be here.

....oops 2 sentences