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="Ctesibius" data-source="post: 6327582" data-attributes="member: 564131"><p>//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif</p><p></p><p>No, I simply point out your miscues and misstatements.</p><p></p><p></p><p>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?</p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>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?</p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>I was atleast commenting on others <em>actual comments</em>. You are now pulling things out of your rectum.</p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>See above.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I never claimed it was <em>your </em>point. I was clarifying that power handling is relative to the application and that the highest power handling doesn't, by default, "win".</p><p></p><p></p><p>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</p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't cloud any discussions, and I haven't made any mistakes.</p><p></p><p>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 "<strong>for example</strong>". Here, I bolded the comment for you so you would be able to follow along. <strong>For example</strong> (bolded again for you) would indicate, of course, that my statement wasn't exclusive to that which was mentioned. It was an.......example.</p><p></p><p></p><p>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</p><p></p><p>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 ??</p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>Please provide details of how you disagree with my <em>initial post</em>. Otherwise, my statement is 100% accurate.</p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Perhaps that I changed my mind on that (and other) comments //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/confused.gif.e820e0216602db4765798ac39d28caa9.gif</p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>I haven't made a single mistake, other than choosing different wordings or comments in various posts.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Not applicable as based on false conclusions. See above.</p><p></p><p></p><p>He could do exactly what he's done without violating Hoffmans Law.</p><p></p><p>As to his claims.....they stand unless you have <em>actual information</em> to the contrary. Can you actually refute his claims? If not, it's pure conjecture on your part.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Unfortunately, the only "cloud" being placed on comments is that done by yourself.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Please indicate at what point I made a "mistake". Up to this point, you have failed.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Sarcasm becomes your defense when you have no intelligent rebuttals.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ctesibius, post: 6327582, member: 564131"] [IMG]//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif[/IMG] 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 [I]actual comments[/I]. 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 [I]your [/I]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 [IMG]//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/rolleyes.gif.c1fef805e9d1464d377451cd5bc18bfb.gif[/IMG] 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 "[B]for example[/B]". Here, I bolded the comment for you so you would be able to follow along. [B]For example[/B] (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 [IMG]//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/crazy.gif.c13912c32de98515d3142759a824dae7.gif[/IMG] 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 [I]initial post[/I]. 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 [IMG]//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/confused.gif.e820e0216602db4765798ac39d28caa9.gif[/IMG] 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 [I]actual information[/I] 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. [/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
