[QUOTE=S2000RAT,Mar 17 2005, 08:10 PM] This is too much. You all need to go to a sound quality event this summer. Let me know how many of them are running "8" SUBS". You will not see one unless you stop at Walmart on the way.

 

Well, if I were to attend some of the races in Japan I would see some of the largest teams running gas line and exhaust magnets to "polarize the flow of the incoming/outgoing elements, increasing atomization and improving flow".

... but you're not going to catch me wasting my time putting those on MY car.

You make a false assumption about sound quality and speaker size, but considering your last few posts that doesn't surprise me.

 

Nice Dan!! and I totally agree!

 

I actually know 2 IASCA SQ first place winners that were running snow men
(8", 10", and 12".) In 90% of music, the 8" was doing 70% of the work.

 

Thank You! NFRs2000NYC. My point. "In 90% of music, the 8" was doing 70% of the work" The work it was doing was Mid Bass. He was using a 12" for the sub.


darknight1999 I must of hit a weak spot with you or something, you must be one of the guys using a 8" sub.

Now can't we play nice?

I feel 8" is NOT big enough to be a sub.

You feel it is.

How gives!

 

[QUOTE=S2000RAT,Mar 18 2005, 10:23 AM] Thank You! NFRs2000NYC. My point. "In 90% of music, the 8" was doing 70% of the work" The work it was doing was Mid Bass. He was using a 12" for the sub.


darknight1999

 

The 8" is better off playing full range. Than just a "sub" line.

But this is all theory. Right.

 

Oh you mean my 10" Alpine Type-R in my custom sub box that I built... yeah good call there Wanna try that again...



Get a clue ya moron your trying to fight a losing battle here,... you know that right,.. you just can't admit your wrong. Your one of those 'I know it all' types of people.

People like you make me laugh because you sound sooo stupid... I'm sorry but you really need to stop and listen to yourself, just for a minute because its truly funny.

 

Rat, I can design a woofer with a tighter frequency response using an 8" cone than I could a 10"... again, tighter with a 10" than I could a 12", etc., assuming all else is the same. The reason being the stiffness of the cone material can be more tightly controlled with a smaller cone. the larger the cone, the more rigid the material I must use, which generally means a heavier cone, which requires larger and more precise drivers, etc. etc.

Do NOT confuse the mass of air being moved with the quality of the sound nor the frequency response of the cone. I'm sure you've often seen a larger cone listed as having a lower frequency response than a smaller cone, but do NOT mistake that experience for being a fact. That's like saying "I've flipped a coin three times, it always came up heads, therefore this coin must not have a tails." From a 10,000 foot view, your conclusion seems correct, but you're not paying attention to all of the facts.

 

S2000RAT is, by definition, an Internet troll:
To S2000RAT, I quote Mark Miller from Feb 1990 on Usenet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll