Why don't competitors use pro audio subs?

[Ctesibius 10+ year member]

As usual, you take my comments completely out of context to try and debunk them. Tell me where I said absolute power was the most important aspect. I stated power handling was important. I never claimed anything about absolute power, or said it was the 'most important aspect'. Nor did I refer to system efficiency in any of my replies. For a smart guy, you really seem to read my posts with your dunce cap on.

You, likewise, seem to read my posts with your dunce cap on with the intent of finding a flaw in what I've said. I started this simply by pointing out that increasing power is the least efficient means of increasing output......something you've yet to actually comment on, or disagree with me on. My first post stated;

"Why do you dingle-berries always think power handling is the most important thing?

Increasing power is the least efficient means of increasing output.

You come back arguing various points with me, only to say "I never said it was the most important aspect". So then why are you arguing with me, if you didn't attempt to contradict my original question or point //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/confused.gif.e820e0216602db4765798ac39d28caa9.gif If you aren't one of those dingle-berries, and never actually attempted to contradict either of my original statements, then you are apparently arguing just to argue.

 

[RAM_Designs 5,000+ posts]

You, likewise, seem to read my posts with your dunce cap on with the intent of finding a flaw in what I've said. I started this simply by pointing out that increasing power is the least efficient means of increasing output......something you've yet to actually comment on, or disagree with me on.

He has to point it out if the point you're trying to make has nothing to do with what he was saying...or takes what he said out of context.

 

[Ctesibius 10+ year member]

He has to point it out if the point you're trying to make has nothing to do with what he was saying...or takes what he said out of context.

wat ?

My first post didn't involve him. He argued with me on my first post, only to later admit he doesn't disagree with it. Thus, he initiated an argument simply for the sake of arguing as far as I'm concerned.

And he didn't comment on my last question to him which was exactly on point with the original topic of this thread.

If multiple lower efficiency subs and 100kw is the "correct" way to get loud, why is the loudest guy in the world using a single sub that Dante states has a sensitivity of 98db and 1/3 of the power of many other competitors?

No, DD doesn't publish their specs on these drivers. But I would guess that a guy who has surpassed 180db with a single driver has the knowledge and has taken the time to learn a little bit about the driver he used to accomplish that.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

You, likewise, seem to read my posts with your dunce cap on with the intent of finding a flaw in what I've said. If you read my posts, I never said power wasn't important. I started this simply by pointing out that increasing power is the least efficient means of increasing output......something you've yet to actually comment on.

You just refuse to make our disagreements easy. Always have to cloud the issue to try and hide your miscues, mis-statements and misunderstandings. Lets go back and look at how this disagreement between you and I started...

Why do you dingle-berries always think power handling is the most important thing?
Increasing power is the least efficient means of increasing output.

Here is when you first get confused and start referencing system efficiency. This discussion is about speaker efficiency, yet you are trying to suggest increasing system efficiency is more practical than power handling of the speaker. While you are correct, you are also off topic to the point of being incorrect within the context of this discussion. Unless you can tell us how you, as an end-user of a speaker brand/model, have a means to increase speaker efficiency (not system efficiency)...? No, I didn't think so.

When burping at or very near tuning, like an SPL rig does, BL is important, as is heat dissipation. The ported enclosure dampens cone excursion greatly at this point, leading to the importance of those two areas. So actually, power handling, for once, is pretty important. But alot of factors go into a successful SPL speaker besides power handling, however that does not diminish its importance either.

Then this is my reply, not even quoting you, making some general statements. Notice where I do not mention system efficiency, as Im remaining on-topic.... speaker efficiency.

Sufficient power for the application is important. Absolute power less so.
That and I never said power wasn't a factor. I said it was the least efficient means. You can increase power two fold and gain a maximum of 3db (less power compression which can become significant at these power levels), which means you also have to upgrade the power source to supply twice the power to the amplifier and the entire system, from wires to amplifiers to voice coils, has to dissipate twice as much heat.......or you can increase the sensitivity of the system by 3db, for example. And this is before we get into the details of power compressions effect on the system.

Is it "better" to reach Xdb with 2kw or 1kw? Why is reaching Xdb with 2kw more impressive or more important than reaching Xdb with less than 2kw?

This is the point I was getting at.

Then your reply, quoting me and speaking as if my comments were aimed specifically at you (taking my comments a little personal are you?). Absolute power? Again you reference system efficiency, and bring a new term to the table, 'absolute power', and suggest it was MY point. Then go on to say "I never said power wasn't a factor"... as if I made ANY comment what so ever claiming you did or did not say this. I hadn't even quoted you at that point in the thread, let alone made any comment suggesting you had said power was not important.
I bolded the word system in this quote from you so as to highlight you confusing the topic, speaker efficiency, with YOUR topic, system efficiency. I did this because I know how you like to cloud the discussion to hide your mistakes. There it is, in bolded letters.

My first post didn't involve him. He argued with me on my first post, only to later admit he doesn't disagree with it. Thus, he initiated an argument simply for the sake of arguing as far as I'm concerned.

You are simply daft. Anyone can go back and see who quoted whom first. My post on 'power handling' did not quote you. But your following reply DID quote me, and spoke in terms that made it clear you completely took my comments as a direct argument to yours.
Oh and, wtf does this even mean: "He argued with me on my first post, only to later admit he doesn't disagree with it."..? I argued with you at first, only to later admit I didn't agree with you? Clouding the topic a little more are we? //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif I see through your bullshit.

And as for ME being the argumentative one, I wasn't going to mention this, but since you are getting personal (again), I saw the post where you stated I was trying to alter the topic (your comment was something along the lines of "trying to change the topic to what you want to discuss"), yet by the time I came back around to quote that reply, you had edited your reply and that was mysteriously left out. Yep, I saw it, your ninja edit was too slow. So... what does this mean? Considering the fact that reply was before I made the point that you have deviated away from speaker efficiency to system efficiency, YOU already realized it. But instead of saying 'oops my bad' and moving on, you swept it under the rug and started spinning to try and hide your mistake. So you can take your attitude that Im the argumentative one here, put it in your pipe, and smoke it pal. Your ego must be pretty damn fragile if you cant admit a simple error in thinking to a bunch of strangers on an internet forum, and instead launch this little campaign to alter the topic to what YOU wish to discuss. Pathetic.

And he didn't comment on my last question to him which was exactly on point with the original topic of this thread.
If multiple lower efficiency subs and 100kw is the "correct" way to get loud, why is the loudest guy in the world using a single sub that Dante states has a sensitivity of 98db and 1/3 of the power of many other competitors?

No, DD doesn't publish their specs on these drivers. But I would guess that a guy who has surpassed 180db with a single driver has the knowledge and has taken the time to learn a little bit about the driver he used to accomplish that.

Boy, if it wasn't for that hairy little South American, where would your argument be? Probably discussing facts from the dark side of the moon. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif Dante can claim anything and everything he wants, first of all he has never been known as the most forth-coming individual in the sport, so I tend to take his comments with a grain of salt. You, on the other hand, take his words as gospel to try and debunk the paradigm shift the entire sport has made over the past 10-15 years. There is alot of mystery surround Dante's setup, as always. But, even if his claim of efficiency on the 99Z is true, are you suggesting he has learned a way to beat Hoffman's Iron Law? //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/crazy.gif.c13912c32de98515d3142759a824dae7.gif
For everyone else, I apologize for this. Seems every thread that Ctes is questioned in lately, has to turn into one of these marathon arguments just to stay on topic and remove the cloud he tries to place over his comments, his 'opponents' comments, and the subsequent points of each. At some point this will probably turn into another 'mom joke' situation in which he simply will not admit his mistake, under any circumstance, so sarcasm becomes the only means with which to deal with the guy. Again, I apologize to everyone else in this thread for this silly situation Ive, once again, allowed myself to be drawn into with Ctes.

 

[Ctesibius 10+ year member]

You just refuse to make our disagreements easy. Always have to cloud the issue to try and hide your miscues, mis-statements and misunderstandings. Lets go back and look at how this disagreement between you and I started...

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

No, I simply point out your miscues and misstatements.

Here is when you first get confused and start referencing system efficiency.

Actually, this is where you get confused. I never mentioned system or driver efficiency in this post. I only pointed out that power is the least efficient means of increasing output after several members mentioned power. Are you with me so far?

This discussion is about speaker efficiency, yet you are trying to suggest increasing system efficiency is more practical than power handling of the speaker.

Actually, I simply pointed out that of the various things to focus on, increasing power is the least efficient. I didn't mention anything specific. Notice how you are confused already.

While you are correct, you are also off topic to the point of being incorrect within the context of this discussion.

So, apparently, even though I'm right....I'm wrong? Is this seriously what you are trying to suggest? After several members mention power handling I'm not allowed, according to the rules of audioholic, to correct them as to why their statements might be in error?

Unless you can tell us how you, as an end-user of a speaker brand/model, have a means to increase speaker efficiency (not system efficiency)...?

I never suggested I did. Why are you dragging this horribly off topic by attempting to interject ideas I never even once suggested, simply to attempt to improve your "position" in the disagreement.

I was atleast commenting on others actual comments. You are now pulling things out of your rectum.

Then this is my reply, not even quoting you, making some general statements. Notice where I do not mention system efficiency, as Im remaining on-topic.... speaker efficiency.

You vaguely mention "BL" (which is not equivalent to speaker efficiency), then the rest of the post is dealing with heat dissipation and power handling......which any reasonable person would assume was directly commenting on my post even though it's not quoted, especially considering it is directly following my post.

So to make it sound like you are 1) keeping things completely on-topic and 2) not directly responding to my post is a blatant misrepresentation at best.

Then your reply, quoting me and speaking as if my comments were aimed specifically at you (taking my comments a little personal are you?).

See above.

Absolute power? Again you reference system efficiency, and bring a new term to the table, 'absolute power', and suggest it was MY point.

I never claimed it was your point. I was clarifying that power handling is relative to the application and that the highest power handling doesn't, by default, "win".

I hadn't even quoted you at that point in the thread, let alone made any comment suggesting you had said power was not important.

You're right...your post about power handling just happened to follow directly behind mine, and appeared to be attempting to mildly contradict mine. I'm sure they two weren't related at all //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/rolleyes.gif.c1fef805e9d1464d377451cd5bc18bfb.gif

I bolded the word system in this quote from you so as to highlight you confusing the topic, speaker efficiency, with YOUR topic, system efficiency. I did this because I know how you like to cloud the discussion to hide your mistakes. There it is, in bolded letters.

I don't cloud any discussions, and I haven't made any mistakes.

If you weren't attempting to take my comments out of context in order to twist them to fit your goals.....you would have noticed that my statement is also directly followed by the words "for example". Here, I bolded the comment for you so you would be able to follow along. For example (bolded again for you) would indicate, of course, that my statement wasn't exclusive to that which was mentioned. It was an.......example.

You are simply daft. Anyone can go back and see who quoted whom first. My post on 'power handling' did not quote you. But your following reply DID quote me, and spoke in terms that made it clear you completely took my comments as a direct argument to yours.

You are right. Your post on power handling, directly following mine, which was which was the only recent post on power handling within 10 posts. You are indeed correct.....only someone as daft as I would see your post as commenting on mine //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/crazy.gif.c13912c32de98515d3142759a824dae7.gif

You don't think it's obvious to see right through your misdirection here? No comment on power handling was made for over a page, except for mine....which your post on power handling directly followed and yet the two are completely unrelated ??

Oh and, wtf does this even mean: "He argued with me on my first post, only to later admit he doesn't disagree with it."..? I argued with you at first, only to later admit I didn't agree with you? Clouding the topic a little more are we? //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif I see through your bullshit.

Clouding? That's is absolutely zero clouding. You have recently stated multiple times that you do not disagree with my initial comments. Thus far in this post all you've done is attempt to make it sound like I've been pulling your comments out of context. You haven't even debated on the information contained in those posts. So yes, we have 3 pages of you disagreeing with me, only to say that you don't actually disagree with me. Here you are again confused. Look at the bolded words. It's right there, written in the English language.

Please provide details of how you disagree with my initial post. Otherwise, my statement is 100% accurate.

And as for ME being the argumentative one, I wasn't going to mention this, but since you are getting personal (again), I saw the post where you stated I was trying to alter the topic (your comment was something along the lines of "trying to change the topic to what you want to discuss"), yet by the time I came back around to quote that reply, you had edited your reply and that was mysteriously left out. Yep, I saw it, your ninja edit was too slow.

You are correct. I've edited several of my posts in this thread before leaving the "final draft". And obviously, if I took those comments out, they were not intended to be a part of the permanent discussion. I changed my mind, believe it or not. But that happens from time to time. And to be honest, I don't even remember which post that was.

If you also would like to know, my "concise clarification" post was originally going to be a detailed line-by-line commentary....but I changed my mind and decided that would be a better way to go. There, use that as some sort of ammunition also if you think it would suite your cause.

So... what does this mean?

Perhaps that I changed my mind on that (and other) comments //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/confused.gif.e820e0216602db4765798ac39d28caa9.gif

Considering the fact that reply was before I made the point that you have deviated away from speaker efficiency to system efficiency, YOU already realized it.

Actually, that wasn't the reason I removed it. IIRC I had removed the comment because you wanted to argue about my viewpoint on speaker efficiency with me which up to that point I hadn't even mentioned. After I posted I decided that argument was just going to turn into another circular argument, going round and round with no conclusion, so I decided to avoid it.

I haven't made a single mistake, other than choosing different wordings or comments in various posts.

But instead of saying 'oops my bad' and moving on, you swept it under the rug and started spinning to try and hide your mistake. So you can take your attitude that Im the argumentative one here, put it in your pipe, and smoke it pal. Your ego must be pretty damn fragile if you cant admit a simple error in thinking to a bunch of strangers on an internet forum, and instead launch this little campaign to alter the topic to what YOU wish to discuss. Pathetic.

Not applicable as based on false conclusions. See above.

Boy, if it wasn't for that hairy little South American, where would your argument be? Probably discussing facts from the dark side of the moon. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif Dante can claim anything and everything he wants, first of all he has never been known as the most forth-coming individual in the sport, so I tend to take his comments with a grain of salt. You, on the other hand, take his words as gospel to try and debunk the paradigm shift the entire sport has made over the past 10-15 years. There is alot of mystery surround Dante's setup, as always. But, even if his claim of efficiency on the 99Z is true, are you suggesting he has learned a way to beat Hoffman's Iron Law? //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/crazy.gif.c13912c32de98515d3142759a824dae7.gif

He could do exactly what he's done without violating Hoffmans Law.

As to his claims.....they stand unless you have actual information to the contrary. Can you actually refute his claims? If not, it's pure conjecture on your part.

remove the cloud he tries to place over his comments, his 'opponents' comments, and the subsequent points of each.

Unfortunately, the only "cloud" being placed on comments is that done by yourself.

At some point this will probably turn into another 'mom joke' situation in which he simply will not admit his mistake,

Please indicate at what point I made a "mistake". Up to this point, you have failed.

so sarcasm becomes the only means with which to deal with the guy.

Sarcasm becomes your defense when you have no intelligent rebuttals.

 

[Ctesibius 10+ year member]

Audioholic;

I edited the above post to add an "]" after a "[/quote" that I had missed, since apparently I need to okay all of my edits with you or else they will be taken out of context and twisted for your use //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif Please let me know if this edit is okay and will not be misconstrued by you in a future post.

 

[Ctesibius 10+ year member]

I'll agree with this whole heartedly. Alot of SPL competitors don't have a great grasp of physics. Most people will tell you it's impossible to model loud. Something tells me dante didn't just throw a bunch of boxes together and hope to hit a 180. I'd bet there was quite a bit of modeling done. Dante uses less power than alot of other vehicles and has piddly shit for cone area vs most setups. He's also in many cases 10db's louder than vehicles utilizing alot more speakers. Again, perhaps not the point of the entire thread, but I still felt the need to chime in.

Thank you for somebody understanding my point.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif
No, I simply point out your miscues and misstatements.

Actually, this is where you get confused. I never mentioned system or driver efficiency in this post. I only pointed out that power is the least efficient means of increasing output after several members mentioned power. Are you with me so far?

Actually, I simply pointed out that of the various things to focus on, increasing power is the least efficient. I didn't mention anything specific. Notice how you are confused already.

So, apparently, even though I'm right....I'm wrong? Is this seriously what you are trying to suggest? After several members mention power handling I'm not allowed, according to the rules of audioholic, to correct them as to why their statements might be in error?

I never suggested I did. Why are you dragging this horribly off topic by attempting to interject ideas I never even once suggested, simply to attempt to improve your "position" in the disagreement.

I was atleast commenting on others actual comments. You are now pulling things out of your rectum.

You vaguely mention "BL" (which is not equivalent to speaker efficiency), then the rest of the post is dealing with heat dissipation and power handling......which any reasonable person would assume was directly commenting on my post even though it's not quoted, especially considering it is directly following my post.

So to make it sound like you are 1) keeping things completely on-topic and 2) not directly responding to my post is a blatant misrepresentation at best.

See above.

I never claimed it was your point. I was clarifying that power handling is relative to the application and that the highest power handling doesn't, by default, "win".

You're right...your post about power handling just happened to follow directly behind mine, and appeared to be attempting to mildly contradict mine. I'm sure they two weren't related at all //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/rolleyes.gif.c1fef805e9d1464d377451cd5bc18bfb.gif

I don't cloud any discussions, and I haven't made any mistakes.

If you weren't attempting to take my comments out of context in order to twist them to fit your goals.....you would have noticed that my statement is also directly followed by the words "for example". Here, I bolded the comment for you so you would be able to follow along. For example (bolded again for you) would indicate, of course, that my statement wasn't exclusive to that which was mentioned. It was an.......example.

You are right. Your post on power handling, directly following mine, which was which was the only recent post on power handling within 10 posts. You are indeed correct.....only someone as daft as I would see your post as commenting on mine //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/crazy.gif.c13912c32de98515d3142759a824dae7.gif

You don't think it's obvious to see right through your misdirection here? No comment on power handling was made for over a page, except for mine....which your post on power handling directly followed and yet the two are completely unrelated ??

Clouding? That's is absolutely zero clouding. You have recently stated multiple times that you do not disagree with my initial comments. Thus far in this post all you've done is attempt to make it sound like I've been pulling your comments out of context. You haven't even debated on the information contained in those posts. So yes, we have 3 pages of you disagreeing with me, only to say that you don't actually disagree with me. Here you are again confused. Look at the bolded words. It's right there, written in the English language.

Please provide details of how you disagree with my initial post. Otherwise, my statement is 100% accurate.

You are correct. I've edited several of my posts in this thread before leaving the "final draft". And obviously, if I took those comments out, they were not intended to be a part of the permanent discussion. I changed my mind, believe it or not. But that happens from time to time. And to be honest, I don't even remember which post that was.

If you also would like to know, my "concise clarification" post was originally going to be a detailed line-by-line commentary....but I changed my mind and decided that would be a better way to go. There, use that as some sort of ammunition also if you think it would suite your cause.

Perhaps that I changed my mind on that (and other) comments //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/confused.gif.e820e0216602db4765798ac39d28caa9.gif

Actually, that wasn't the reason I removed it. IIRC I had removed the comment because you wanted to argue about my viewpoint on speaker efficiency with me which up to that point I hadn't even mentioned. After I posted I decided that argument was just going to turn into another circular argument, going round and round with no conclusion, so I decided to avoid it.

I haven't made a single mistake, other than choosing different wordings or comments in various posts.

Not applicable as based on false conclusions. See above.

He could do exactly what he's done without violating Hoffmans Law.

As to his claims.....they stand unless you have actual information to the contrary. Can you actually refute his claims? If not, it's pure conjecture on your part.

Unfortunately, the only "cloud" being placed on comments is that done by yourself.

Please indicate at what point I made a "mistake". Up to this point, you have failed.

Sarcasm becomes your defense when you have no intelligent rebuttals.

You simply aren't worth a line-by-line disagreement. You show a complete propensity to twist anything and everything to suit you. More words means more things for you to twist. I will simply reiterate that this thread is on speaker efficiency, not system efficiency. So lets put this in perspective. You state that increasing system efficiency is more efficient (for lack of a better word) than simply increasing power levels. In a thread on speaker efficiency, this is completely off topic and irrelevant. It would be akin to a discussion on increasing horsepower levels in your engine, and you popping in to tell us changing gear ratios is a more efficient way to gain speed. So what? Change gear ratios (make system efficency as high as possible) while STILL increasing horsepower (higher power handling speaker). You can make the install as efficient as possible, and still utilize a lower efficiency speaker within the system. This is exactly what competitors do. Even your oh-so-important example of Alan Dante does not support your cause. Otherwise, instead of using a 97db efficiency speaker (so you claim he claims), why doesn't he use a pro audio speaker with even higher efficiency? Why is he not scouring the globe to find the highest efficiency speaker on Earth? Because even your god-like example knows power handling is important, and pro audio drivers simply dont have the cooling capabilities of a speaker with a heavy coil and motor structure to absorb the heat and dissipate it.

Your interjection of system efficiency does not affect the debate within this thread, on speaker efficiency, one bit. You concluding it did, and subsequently defending that position over and over, only seems show your lack of understanding of the distinction between the two topics. Yet your decision to remove your comments on how you thought I was changing the topic indicates you do realize the distinction, just cant bring yourself to admit you confused the two initially. Maybe you are bipolar. Is there a side to Ctes that is concise, reasonable, makes sense and admits when he is wrong? if so, Id like to speak with him next time, k?

And yes, you removing the line from your post stating I was trying to change the topic to what I want to talk about was you changing your mind. Duh? //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/crazy.gif.c13912c32de98515d3142759a824dae7.gif My point was you realized we were discussing different topics, speaker versus system efficiency, and your initial thought was I was changing the topic of the thread. Once you realized I was the one on topic and you weren't, you "changed your mind" and removed the line, but still maintain the campaign to confuse our debate so thoroughly as to hope nobody will notice you are the one who has altered the thread topic. I noticed. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wave.gif.002382ce7d7c19757ab945cc69819de1.gif I have shown where you are talking about system efficiency in relation to people's (those "dingleberrys") comments on speaker efficiency, I defy you to point out where I have claimed increasing system efficiency is more important than power handling of the speaker. You wont, because you cant. And that's because I, and everyone else in this thread, were discussing speaker efficiency.

Your "for example" argument falls short as well. I guess because you said "for example" that makes it okay that your 'example' was completely off topic? Your example discussed increasing system efficiency. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

Lastly, even you state you felt I "mildly" disagreed with your post. I didn't quote it, I didnt mention you or your points specifically, you felt threatened none the less. *gasp* It seems your ego doesn't allow you to even be "mildly" disagreed with to the point of making a fool of yourself instead of simply saying 'oops I confused system efficiency with speaker efficiency' and moving on. So please, post another marathon reply showing us just how fragile your ego is, I look forward to the laugh. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

Cheers.

 

[infamous_e46 5,000+ posts]

werent tc sounds originally more of a pro audio joint

 

[Mr. Slate 10+ year member]

People constantly bring up Dante but no one talks about the extreme vehicle build. He could probably do a 75 with Pyramid amps and sub.

 

[oldschoolboomer 10+ year member]

allrightythen. Does anyone have links to a loud system running pro drivers?

 

[Ctesibius 10+ year member]

You show a complete propensity to twist anything and everything to suit you.

Really? Because if you read, I haven't twisted a single thing. I corrected the points in which you tried to twist my words and motives, such as we will see below and we have already seen above.

I will simply reiterate that this thread is on speaker efficiency, not system efficiency. So lets put this in perspective. You state that increasing system efficiency is more efficient (for lack of a better word) than simply increasing power levels. In a thread on speaker efficiency, this is completely off topic and irrelevant.

I did infact say increasing power was the least efficient means of increasing output, and at one point did include increasing system efficiency as an example. Both of which you have yet to deny are accurate statements and yet you continue to argue with me. It is not irrelevant and off topic when several members prior bring power into the conversation. For some reason, this aspect completely eludes you.

What is even more entertaining, is that you pretend that I somehow brought the conversation completely off topic, when in the post directly following mine (which you claim was in no way related to my post, //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif ) you also bring in the topic of power handling. So you are just as "guilty" as I am, according to your own admissions, for bringing completely off topic and irrelevant information into the thread (which would make your persistent bashing of me for this hypocritical). Because either 1) you brought power into the topic independent of my post, as you claim, which would mean it was completely off topic and irrelevant to the initial topic, or 2) you brought power up because of my post, which is contradictory to what you have previously said because according to you, your post wasn't a response to mine.

So, according to your own statements, either you are as guilty as I and are acting hypocritically or you admittedly misconstrued the purposes of your own postings.

It would be akin to a discussion on increasing horsepower levels in your engine, and you popping in to tell us changing gear ratios is a more efficient way to gain speed. So what? Change gear ratios (make system efficency as high as possible) while STILL increasing horsepower (higher power handling speaker).

No, it would be akin to having a topic asking why more people aren't improving their aerodynamics and having several members chime in "Pfft, but my car has more horsepower". Again, you demonstrating you have not been able to comprehend the thread.

You can make the install as efficient as possible, and still utilize a lower efficiency speaker within the system.

Again, pulling arguments out of your rectum. If you read, I never said you couldn't make an efficient system with a lower efficiency driver. Good try, no prize.

This is exactly what competitors do. Even your oh-so-important example of Alan Dante does not support your cause. Otherwise, instead of using a 97db efficiency speaker (so you claim he claims), why doesn't he use a pro audio speaker with even higher efficiency? Why is he not scouring the globe to find the highest efficiency speaker on Earth? Because even your god-like example knows power handling is important, and pro audio drivers simply dont have the cooling capabilities of a speaker with a heavy coil and motor structure to absorb the heat and dissipate it.

Again, arguments out of your rectum. And quite a straw-man argument. You continue to argue points I never made. More word twisting and clouding the argument from the master.

There are plenty of reasons you wouldn't chose a driver based solely on it's high efficiency. Unusably low Q, too high of an Fs, weak cone design, limited mechanical excursion, etc.

But you have yet to be able to tell me why, if your theory is "correct", the loudest guy in the world is using a driver that is claimed to be 4db - 10db more efficient than those used in your "perfect" systems with 1/3 the power....and getting louder than them.

I brought him into the conversation not to support my claim, but rather to disagree with yours //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif EDIT: To clarify, I brought the 141db @ 1w claim in to support my initial position of system efficiency as opposed to maximum power handling abilities. The 98db/1w/1m part I brought in simply to disagree with your perfect theory.

Your interjection of system efficiency does not affect the debate within this thread, on speaker efficiency, one bit.

I never said it did. I commented on the guys who think absolute power handling is the end-all be-all.

You concluding it did,

Again, misconstruing information and clouding the arguments. I never said it did, and you can not show me anywhere that I have.

and subsequently defending that position over and over, only seems show your lack of understanding of the distinction between the two topics.

I completely understand the distinction. Unfortunately, you 1) keep trying to make my statements claim something they are not, and 2) have an inability to comprehend what it is I am saying.

Yet your decision to remove your comments on how you thought I was changing the topic indicates you do realize the distinction, just cant bring yourself to admit you confused the two initially.

You a seriously dense. If you really put a small bit of thought into the edited comment, you would realize that it is specifically relating to the fact you kept want to argue speaker efficiency with me when I never commented on speaker efficiency //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/idea.gif.5acb6a39a9b92425414c316dda202bad.gif But you are unable to comprehend my statements, and wish to twist them to say what it is you want them to say. You are demonstrably the one who is confused and unable to realize the distinction between the two.

Is there a side to Ctes that is concise, reasonable, makes sense and admits when he is wrong? if so, Id like to speak with him next time, k?

Sure there is. But I've yet to be wrong on the points you wish to indicate, thus there is nothing to admit to.

For example (I hope you understand the meaning of that phrase), If someone wants to demonstrate, with actual evidence, that the 9918Z Dante uses is not 98db @ 1w/1m I would gladly withdraw that as evidence against your perfect theory of SPL. But as it stands, all you have is conjecture and a straw man argument against points I never made.

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/crazy.gif.c13912c32de98515d3142759a824dae7.gif My point was you realized we were discussing different topics, speaker versus system efficiency, and your initial thought was I was changing the topic of the thread.

Again, you are highly confused. I never thought you were changing the topic of the thread, you were changing the topic of my comments. What part of this do you not get?

Once you realized I was the one on topic and you weren't, you "changed your mind" and removed the line, but still maintain the campaign to confuse our debate so thoroughly as to hope nobody will notice you are the one who has altered the thread topic.

Again, demonstrating just how dense you really are. I realize the topic of the thread, and I wasn't commenting on the topic of the thread. I was commenting on posts made within the thread, and you wanting to argue with me on points I never made.

I have shown where you are talking about system efficiency in relation to people's (those "dingleberrys") comments on speaker efficiency,

Actually, they were not commenting on speaker or system efficiency. They were commenting on power handling which was the point of my post. You continue to demonstrate just how confused you have been throughout this entire discussion.

I defy you to point out where I have claimed increasing system efficiency is more important than power handling of the speaker. You wont, because you cant. And that's because I, and everyone else in this thread, were discussing speaker efficiency.

Really? Than what is this?

"When burping at or very near tuning, like an SPL rig does, BL is important, as is heat dissipation. The ported enclosure dampens cone excursion greatly at this point, leading to the importance of those two areas. So actually, power handling, for once, is pretty important. But alot of factors go into a successful SPL speaker besides power handling, however that does not diminish its importance either."

Your "for example" argument falls short as well. I guess because you said "for example" that makes it okay that your 'example' was completely off topic?

It was *gasp* completely on-topic to the point I was making. That power handling is not an efficient means of increasing output compared to the alternatives.

Lastly, even you state you felt I "mildly" disagreed with your post. I didn't quote it, I didnt mention you or your points specifically, you felt threatened none the less. *gasp*

You're right. You didn't quote it. Yet you directly commented on it. Or were you pulling power handling completely out of thin are on an off-topic and irrelevant rant? Because those are your two alternatives, one makes you a hypocrite and the other makes you a liar. So, which is it?

It seems your ego doesn't allow you to even be "mildly" disagreed with to the point of making a fool of yourself

Speaking of making a fool of yourself, please answer the above question.

instead of simply saying 'oops I confused system efficiency with speaker efficiency' and moving on.

That's because I never confused the two. You, however, have a failure to comprehend and thus have been apparently confused the entire thread.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

I stopped reading after line 1. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif Just, concisely, tell me/us the correlation between your point on system efficiency, and the rest of the threads point on speaker efficiency. Remember, if its not concise, I wont read it. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif That may sound lame, but honestly, you are the most boring person Ive ever argued with.

Again... thread topic --> speaker efficiency... your topic --> system efficiency. Correlate them in regards to your comment. And by correlate, I of course mean tell us how your comment on increasing system efficiency has anything to do with the discussion on speaker efficiency.

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

 

[Ctesibius 10+ year member]

I stopped reading after line 1. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif Just, concisely, tell me/us the correlation between your point on system efficiency, and the rest of the threads point on speaker efficiency. Remember, if its not concise, I wont read it. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif That may sound lame, but honestly, you are the most boring person Ive ever argued with.
Again... thread topic --> speaker efficiency... your topic --> system efficiency. Correlate them in regards to your comment.

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

Again, you're ultimate confusion of the entire thread.

My comments;

Power handling/output =/= highest output

This simple concept of me commenting on posts within the thread, completely eludes you still. 3 pages of debates about something you ultimately don't disagree with, simply because you will not accept that I've been right all along.

 

[Mr. Slate 10+ year member]

allrightythen. Does anyone have links to a loud system running pro drivers?

For midranges, yes not for bass.

http://www.deephitters.net