Just got done reading this and I have to say it is amazing that all of the speakers could hold such a flaw while the ones Matt seems to have tested and uses for advertisement would be so offbeat! I would say tho and have to agree here Ranger with the "false advertisement"
lcpunk69
10+ year member
SQ Baby!
Audiomobile = Low life, Scamming Company
KoBan715
10+ year member
CarAudio.com Elite
I lost alot of respect for audiomobile. I guess you gotta lie to get head right "Matt"?
No offense RM but do you honestly think he's going to respond //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif
lcpunk69
10+ year member
SQ Baby!
No need for him to reply, he knows hes a liar, and now he's been caught in several lies, and probably hates himself for ever discovering internet forums //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif I can guarantee 100% to you tha he has lost customers probably a good amount over all his babbling on internet forums, which every forum he goes to he seems to find himself "outcasted"
KoBan715
10+ year member
CarAudio.com Elite
There some people on other forums that love there EVO-R Subs. I guess they never knew that the Spec's where False I wonder what there gonna think when this get out in the Open.
bumpin_blazer
5,000+ posts
Only the Strong Survive
well i have to say that i was honestly considering purchasing an Evo-R to do some good tests on it and give a good solid review for this forum to let people make a decision about audiomobile from someone they know on this forum. now some people on here may consider me a dick like overpecker but i would have given a fair review on them. now to overpeck i say "good day to you sir" with a smack upside the head.
adam
adam
actually, i wasnt the one who got a threat from matts 'legal' department //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/rolleyes.gif.c1fef805e9d1464d377451cd5bc18bfb.gif i dont remember who it was, but i believe somebody called him a c*cks*cker...maybe matt will stop by and remind us //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/biggrin.gif.d71a5d36fcbab170f2364c9f2e3946cb.gif
eric
We NEVER threatened anyone...about anything (what utter nonsense). But there is one extreme source for that kind bizarre of dribble...
We did suggest to one nit-wit that if he should refrain from making false allegations that we "stole" (that was the word used) our technology from another company (because there is a term for that -- and it is NOT protected by the First Amendment). And he promptly shut-up...end of story.
And as far as the accuracy of our specs, the EVO-R test that has been purported to show that we are not accurate in our Xmax specs, only shows that the rearward travel of the suspension is not as it should be (likely due to a spider with excessive resin on it). So this impacted the X-MAX number.
However, as with EVERY other EVO-R test report over the past year, the Xmag (which is really the most important thing in looking at the linear capability of the motor) was still 25 - 26 mm. This is well within a 10% tolerance for production units, vs. our published specification of 27 mm.
By the way, then the JL 12 W7 was tested, it failed to meet it's published specification by 10% (26.2 DUMAX measured vs. 29.2 published X-MAX). So we are hardly guilty of having committed any transgressions.
And the recent test of the EVO-R 2315 showed that the Xmag (linear motor travel) and the Xsus (linear suspension travel), which are independently tested, BOTH were 28 mm (though the unit sent for DUMAX testing was a proto that unfortunatly had the VC offset by a huge amount. Properly centered (even off by just half a s much, would have resulted in the spec being met. So this just further illustrates that the product will perform as advertised.
It is worth noting that the EVO-R also SMASHED the SPL output for in-car SPL, both with low-distortion (test tones from 25 - 62 Hz.) as well as in peak SL output, by 2 - 3 dB!!! (and did this in only a 1.5' sealed box -- same as that used to test the 12 W7).
The EVO-R tested in-car could not have bested the numbers put up by the JL 12 W7 by such a huge amount (2 - 3 dB), UNLESSS it had comparable Xmax. As the difference in the cone area would amount to 2 - 3 dB, but ONLY if the linear excursion is similar.
And the EVO-R also had a flatter frequency response (1.8 dB tolerance), down to 10 Hz.! If you put that sub in a 33 - 50% larger box, then it would have added another 2 - 3 dB output under 25 Hz. Larger boxes result in more output in the bottom octave.
So while some do not understand the actual technical aspects of what DUMAX numbers mean, let's just say that the linear behavior of the suspension is FAR less important then the behavior of the motor (as it the VC exiting the gap, that determines the onset of audible distortion).
Hope that clears a few things up....
Cheers!
Matt
Audiomobile
We did suggest to one nit-wit that if he should refrain from making false allegations that we "stole" (that was the word used) our technology from another company (because there is a term for that -- and it is NOT protected by the First Amendment). And he promptly shut-up...end of story.
And as far as the accuracy of our specs, the EVO-R test that has been purported to show that we are not accurate in our Xmax specs, only shows that the rearward travel of the suspension is not as it should be (likely due to a spider with excessive resin on it). So this impacted the X-MAX number.
However, as with EVERY other EVO-R test report over the past year, the Xmag (which is really the most important thing in looking at the linear capability of the motor) was still 25 - 26 mm. This is well within a 10% tolerance for production units, vs. our published specification of 27 mm.
By the way, then the JL 12 W7 was tested, it failed to meet it's published specification by 10% (26.2 DUMAX measured vs. 29.2 published X-MAX). So we are hardly guilty of having committed any transgressions.
And the recent test of the EVO-R 2315 showed that the Xmag (linear motor travel) and the Xsus (linear suspension travel), which are independently tested, BOTH were 28 mm (though the unit sent for DUMAX testing was a proto that unfortunatly had the VC offset by a huge amount. Properly centered (even off by just half a s much, would have resulted in the spec being met. So this just further illustrates that the product will perform as advertised.
It is worth noting that the EVO-R also SMASHED the SPL output for in-car SPL, both with low-distortion (test tones from 25 - 62 Hz.) as well as in peak SL output, by 2 - 3 dB!!! (and did this in only a 1.5' sealed box -- same as that used to test the 12 W7).
The EVO-R tested in-car could not have bested the numbers put up by the JL 12 W7 by such a huge amount (2 - 3 dB), UNLESSS it had comparable Xmax. As the difference in the cone area would amount to 2 - 3 dB, but ONLY if the linear excursion is similar.
And the EVO-R also had a flatter frequency response (1.8 dB tolerance), down to 10 Hz.! If you put that sub in a 33 - 50% larger box, then it would have added another 2 - 3 dB output under 25 Hz. Larger boxes result in more output in the bottom octave.
So while some do not understand the actual technical aspects of what DUMAX numbers mean, let's just say that the linear behavior of the suspension is FAR less important then the behavior of the motor (as it the VC exiting the gap, that determines the onset of audible distortion).
Hope that clears a few things up....
Cheers!
Matt
Audiomobile
lcpunk69
10+ year member
SQ Baby!
There you go again saying how your sub is better than others, and putting others down.
Activity
No one is currently typing a reply...
Similar threads
- Started by siah agha
- General Car Audio
- Started by tedy pramono
- Wiring, Electrical & Installation
Featured
Help Please Classic Mini
- Started by Bunglefuzz
- Wiring, Electrical & Installation
- Started by joemichael44
- Head Units
About this thread
