Menu
Forum
General Car Audio
Subwoofers
Speakers
Amplifiers
Head Units
Car Audio Build Logs
Wiring, Electrical and Installation
Enclosure Design & Construction
Car Audio Classifieds
Home Audio
Off-topic Discussion
The Lounge
What's new
Search forums
Gallery
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
Classifieds Member Feedback
SHOP
Shop Head Units
Shop Amplifiers
Shop Speakers
Shop Subwoofers
Shop eBay Car Audio
Log in / Register
Forum
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
Log in / Join
What’s new
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
General Car Audio
Subwoofers
Speakers
Amplifiers
Head Units
Car Audio Build Logs
Wiring, Electrical and Installation
Enclosure Design & Construction
Car Audio Classifieds
Home Audio
Off-topic Discussion
The Lounge
What's new
Search forums
Menu
Reply to thread
Forum
Car Audio Discussion
General Car Audio
Why don't competitors use pro audio subs?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="audioholic" data-source="post: 6327262" data-attributes="member: 549629"><p>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...</p><p>Here is when you first get confused and start referencing <em>system</em> efficiency. This discussion is about speaker efficiency, yet you are trying to suggest increasing <em>system efficiency</em> is more practical than power handling of the <em>speaker</em>. 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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>I bolded the word <em>system</em> 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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p>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 bullsh<span style="color: Black">i</span>t.</p><p></p><p>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 <em>speaker</em> efficiency to <em>system</em> 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 d<span style="color: Black">a</span>mn 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.</p><p></p><p>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</p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="audioholic, post: 6327262, member: 549629"] 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... Here is when you first get confused and start referencing [I]system[/I] efficiency. This discussion is about speaker efficiency, yet you are trying to suggest increasing [I]system efficiency[/I] is more practical than power handling of the [I]speaker[/I]. 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. 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. 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 [I]system[/I] 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. 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? [IMG]//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif[/IMG] I see through your bullsh[COLOR=Black]i[/COLOR]t. 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 [I]speaker[/I] efficiency to [I]system[/I] 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 d[COLOR=Black]a[/COLOR]mn 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. 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. [IMG]//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif[/IMG] 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? [IMG]//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/crazy.gif.c13912c32de98515d3142759a824dae7.gif[/IMG] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forum
Car Audio Discussion
General Car Audio
Why don't competitors use pro audio subs?
Top
Menu
What's new
Forum list
