Leaderboard

Hey guys, I currently have 2 Image Dynamic ID12's in a 4 cube ported box being pushed by an AQ1200D (870rms x 1 @ 2ohms) and my box is tuned to 30Hz. I want to "upgrade" and have something that's louder, still fairly accurate, can hit the higher bass notes (current box is severely lacking in that area, but hits the lows nicely) while still being able to bang the lows too, and has a smaller footprint. My car is a 04 Monte Carlo and currently the subs/port are rear firing, no speakers in my rear deck to allow more bass into the cabin. I'm open to all suggestions as for layout and what subs to use to accomplish my goals. My budget for sub(s) is $400 maximum! My only requirement is that whatever sub(s) are used are able to be wired to a 1ohm load so I can get the full power from my AQ1200D, which is rumored to be able to put out around 1500rms. Beyond that, i'm open to suggestions.

The wave out of the sub in back and the wave out of the port in front won't be in phase because the one in front just has to move into the cabin, whereas the wave from the sub has to go back into the trunk, bounce off something, then go back forward into the cabin. It most likely won't cause cancellation because subbass frequencies have too long of a wave length, but the waves just won't reinforce each other quite as well.

i'll be installing banner programs shortly for this.

Ok review up!! Second Skin Damplifier Pro - SSA Car Audio Forum

Wow, looks pretty good guys!

Yeah, I think i'm going with 2 DD 2512's. I'm gonna build a custom box, although I could get away with putting the 2512's in my current box. I might just do that for shits and giggles to see how differenty they sound compared to my ID's

Anybody ever use this program? I just stumbled on to it and wondering if it's worth downloading/installing and doing the work to "normalize" my mp3 collection. http://mp3gain.sourceforge.net/

It's supposed to adjust the volume of the song in the event it's below the 89db, or whatever db you decide you want it adjusted to. This is only necessary if you have some mp3's that are noticeably lower in volume than others.

Just finished... had to come inside and wash all my cuts off before I could use the keyboard but I will have the review shortly

This forum isn't the place for bickering. Obviously there are two strong opinions, and everyone else has stopped talking to let the argument take place. Please just PM each other.

I tried it, boosted the cb by +3, but I couldn't tell a difference at all....gonna try foobar2000

I currently have a pair of ID12d2v3 subs in a Subzone ported box, 4 cubes, tuned to 30Hz with subs/port firing back and powered by an AQ1200D wired to 2 ohms (870 watts rms). This setup surprised me a few ways 1. The subs are rated at 250 rms, i'm giving them almost double that 2. Subs don't get stinky, never have 3. Never expected the output im getting from this setup, it hits way deeper and gets way louder than I expected it would. I do have some complaints though 1. The box is way too big, IMO. 2. While it bangs the lows pretty good, the higher bass notes are severely lacking 3. Not getting full power out of my amp That being said, and in light of the recent electrical issues I experienced (which have since been resolved) that resulted me in pulling out the system, I have decided that it's time to rebuild my substage. It was louder than I expected it to be but I want it even louder! I've decided to go with 2 2512's and an AQ2200D, does this sound like a good combo? The DD's are pretty expensive so i'm going to get one for now and run it off my AQ1200D @ 1 ohm (1200-1470 watts rms) until I can afford to get the other sub and amp. I'm going to install the sub in a custom built 1.75 cube box tuned to about 36Hz with the sub/port firing forward and sealed off from the trunk. Anybody think the new setup will be louder than my current one? I haven't metered my current setup so I have no idea what it does number wise but it's not bad for what it is. Anybody think I'll have a problem running 1200-1400 watts to the single sub now or the 2200-2400 watts to the pair in the furture?

I've downloaded it before don't recall if I ever used it though. jay-cee what you don't realize is he is talking about the level the music is mastered at. Newer popular music is being mastered at a high level then before, which is crummy. It has nothing to do with how the song was ripped. Easiest way I can explain it is to have you read the wiki article on the loudness war. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war

Yeah, download better quality songs, never mind the FACT that not all cd's are recorded at the same volume level

I don't understand why people get so up in arms when something doesn't fit it a nice neat little box. My take on the issue is that it's subjective, just like the term "loud." To me, ""SQL"" means the mesh of a more SPL focused sub stage with a more SQ focused front stage, hence my username. In my car i'm running a 3 way active setup with my mids/highs all time aligned and balanced out for optimal soundstage and imaging. The only thing SQ about my sub stage is the driver itself, beyond that it's more geared towards spl than sq. From being in car audio for so long I have realized that I don't fit either of the "boxes", spl or sq, I like the sq side of things when it comes to mids and highs, but the spl side of things when it comes to bass. Why can't people just accept that, why does it have to be either a or b?

It falls off big time at around 44Hz and only gets worse from there. My subs suggested ported box size is anywhere from 1.5-2 cubes each. Something I didn't know at the time is that the size box you use/build should be determined, in part, by how much power you're going to run to your subs. The way I understand it is that, in general, if you're underpowering your subs then you want to go with a box on the bigger end of the scale, if you're giving them rated power then you want to go with a box that's about in the middle of the scale and if you're overpowering them then you should go with a box on the smaller end of the scale. That being said, and considering that i'm running my subs at nearly double their rated rms, I should have gone with a box that's about 1.5 cubes per sub.....my box is 2.0 cubes per, so it's too big. I'm not getting full power out of the amp because i'm running it at 2 ohms, it makes full power (as far as what it's maximum output rating is, which is 1470 watts) at 1 ohm. I can't wire these subs down to 1 ohm and even if I could it's not likely that they'd be able to handle triple their rated rms handling. So since my subs are rated at 250rms, and i'm running them at 2 ohms so the amp is putting out 870rms, that means each sub is getting 435rms....that's not almost twice their rated rms?Do you think I could get away with running a 160a H/O alt, or should I bite the bullet and go with something in the 250a range? I took your "full power" comment to mean at the impedance you were running the subs at. Not what the amp could do at 1 ohm. I figured perhaps you toned the gain down from the full 870 watts or whatever at 2 ohms so that it was around 500 watts. But even still, have you tested the output of the amplifier to see if you're actually getting all of its rated power at 2 ohms? While box size does manipulate power handling, that is the last thing I would base my box size off of. I care more about the response of the box than the power it will handle. So what size ported box are you going to make for your new 12s? I would rather have the larger alternator, at least 200 amps. If you're already spending a bunch of money on equipment, what's another 50-100 bucks or whatever it is to go from a 160 to 200+ amp alt.

Do you know anything about our situation other than the fact that I choose not to do business with companies he has close ties with? But yet you're forming an opinion on it and using retarded metaphors to further prove how immature YOU are! Great info! So based on what you know about my music listening style and my budget, do you have any suggestions that you think would be better suited for me than a DD 2512?

Haha, I wish I could tell you. Just so you know, my system is currently down, had to take it out due to random electrical issues with the car once the factory deck was removed. Gotta love Chevy's Class 2 data bus crap! But when it was up and running I was getting 14.4 at idle and up to 15.0 under acceleration. Don't mistake that for being a constant 15.0, it was more a touch and go type thing, sorry if I misled. And when my system was up and running I did have the Big 3 done. Maybe I didn't word it right, i'm definitely not running a 3 way setup, but I am running 3 way active uh...........ROFL. When somebody says they're running a 3 way setup, I automatically think what Jay-cee said, tweet/midrange/midbass. But running 3 way active can be either the aforementioned or like my setup, tweet/midrange/subs. You don't have to run an active setup to run a 3 way setup. Kinda hard to say because I don't know what certain frequencies are in certain songs, but I think they should be able to play the mid to upper 40's with no problems. I determined the frequency the drop off happens by playing test tones. As far as clean and loud and the definitions of them....The clean part was more me asking if the AQ puts out clean power...people are always using the term "clean power" and I was just wanting to know if the AQ qualifies as an amp that puts out clean power. Loud....what's loud is very much subjective, I get it, I guess I was just wondering if the DD 2512's would fall under the "loud" category if pushed with the AQ2200 in a properly built enclosure. I'm not looking for a meter monster or nothing like that, I just want a daily driver that has a bangin' sub stage with a clean sounding front stage. My equipment prospects are my own choices, nobody led me to either of them...I have an AQ1200 that I am happy with, it didn't cost very much and pushed my subs nicely which is why I considered the AQ2200. As for the subs, I just wanted to go with something not many others out here have. Exactly! I will not support brands that support him, that's my personal preference and I have my reasons which I don't care to get into here. AA is too pricey for me and no local dealer anyway, Iraggi; way too many horror stories for me to even consider doing business with him, XS Power for me is like using a cannon to kill a fly, my SVR batteries do me just fine. I've never been a fan of Kicker.....so yeah, taking them out of the mix is a non-issue for me Did I read that right? You're comparing him to Jesus? I thought I got away from that crap You have no idea what happened that makes me feel this way so how can you comment on whether or not it's retarded? Getting banned from his forum has nothing to do with it, FYI, it's way deeper than that but again, I don't choose to get into it here. So I only ask that you respect my choice on the subject and refrain from making yourself look any dumber by forming an opinion on something you have very little info about. That sucks

His avatar might be a hint.

I understand where you're coming from....I've never had any experience with DD so i'm definitely not speaking from experience, but they aren't exactly abundant out here on the West Coast and I like having things not many others have. But also DD seems to have quite a reputation for building a very good product that performs well and while the cost of the product was a bit more than I really wanted to pay initially, I haven't read or heard anything about the product that makes me think it'll be anything other than impressive. Just for the record, when I first decided I wanted to get louder I set my budget at $300 and had my sights set on a pair of Type R 12's...they were $120 at the time and are $130 now. But one of my teammates just went out and got a pair of Type R's and I don't want the same thing he's got so I ditched the idea. I considered a Fi Q but refused to do business with a company so closely related with ***** *****. So after looking around, checking out prices and user reviews, I have decided to give DD a shot.

There you go splitting hairs again, haha. Maybe I didn't word it right, i'm definitely not running a 3 way setup, but I am running 3 way active since the signal for all the speakers in my setup are processed first then amplified and all can be tweaked via my deck. But enough with the semantics, an SSA Xcon is damn near $400!!!! Ouch! Not to mention the 1750rms rating...considering my amp can only put out 1470rms at it's best, I think I'll stick with the DD 2512. You seem kind of intent on steering me away from DD, any reason why? Since I want to do the sub/port forward, I think I need to stay with a 12" cause the maximum height my box can be is 16" so a 15" sub would be pushing it.

It falls off big time at around 44Hz and only gets worse from there. My subs suggested ported box size is anywhere from 1.5-2 cubes each. Something I didn't know at the time is that the size box you use/build should be determined, in part, by how much power you're going to run to your subs. The way I understand it is that, in general, if you're underpowering your subs then you want to go with a box on the bigger end of the scale, if you're giving them rated power then you want to go with a box that's about in the middle of the scale and if you're overpowering them then you should go with a box on the smaller end of the scale. That being said, and considering that i'm running my subs at nearly double their rated rms, I should have gone with a box that's about 1.5 cubes per sub.....my box is 2.0 cubes per, so it's too big. I'm not getting full power out of the amp because i'm running it at 2 ohms, it makes full power (as far as what it's maximum output rating is, which is 1470 watts) at 1 ohm. I can't wire these subs down to 1 ohm and even if I could it's not likely that they'd be able to handle triple their rated rms handling. So since my subs are rated at 250rms, and i'm running them at 2 ohms so the amp is putting out 870rms, that means each sub is getting 435rms....that's not almost twice their rated rms?Do you think I could get away with running a 160a H/O alt, or should I bite the bullet and go with something in the 250a range? Nobody woke me up and this ain't church so no need to preach. Besides, he had his facts wrong. If you can't come in here and answer some questions and help people out then you can stay out of my thread cause there's no need for your unhelpful and ignorant comments. That's all

Only way to really tell is to do a blind A/B test, otherwise Pyschoacoustics will dominate.

I understand that music is being recorded at high crummy levels nowadays, thats a given. I didnt read the whole statistical analysis part of it, from the main page I got that it will add loudness to the tracks that appear low so I looked at it as a loudness feature. After reading the whole document and the click on links in the document I see what he wants to do now, basically make all the tracks play the same instead of clicking a button to make one as loud as the others. OP I do apologize for my lack of reading .

Yeah, download better quality songs, never mind the FACT that not all cd's are recorded at the same volume level Anytime you use a boost it is not good for the speakers regardless the quality of the music, if the music is recorded horribly then it will still sound shitty when boosted.

Sounds like a loudness feature but for a mp3 player, I wouldnt use it and if you need it then it means you need to download better quality songs.

Steve uses Rockford Fosgate, and RE as well. Oh and he puts gas in his vehicles...why don't ya boycott gasoline! He eats food too, stop eating food that's supporting Steve Meade! Seriously now, how old are you?

You dont have a 3-way setup, you have a 2-way setup with a sub stage. 3 ways consist of tweeters, midrange and midbass. 2 ways consist of tweeters and midrange or midbass speaker. Well how about you try an SSA Xcon on your amp, preferrably a 15" or are you trying to stay on a 12" subwoofer.

It's not that DD is my only option, I have tons of options, all I'd need is some D4 subs, but I don't just want the final impedance I want a well built product that has a good warranty and is dependable and will not only handle the power I have to throw at it today but the power I upgrade to tomorrow (figuratively). It's funny you say DD is an expensive option because of all the 12" subs I'd consider getting from the store here, every single one of them is more expensive than what I've been quoted for the 2512, with exception of the SA-12's. The one's I'd consider are the SSA Icon's, SoundSplinter RL-p, and the SA-12's. There's no particular size box I want, that will be determined by how much power i'm running and what the subs need. However, I'd like to keep the box within the following specs: 35w x 16h x 20d. I listen to Rap, Heavy Metal, R&B, Soul, Funk, Disco, Alternative Rock. I'm running a 3 way active setup, subs/mids/highs, so there are no amp settings that would be in play here. The settings that pertain to my subs, xover point, slope, EQ, etc., have all been adjusted to get more top end but to no avail. As long as the new sub/box/increased power setup would be louder then it's mission accomplished. I might even just stay with the one sub if I notice it's louder, at least for the time being. As for the box, this will be my first custom box build and I sured picked a tough one to learn on...sub/port firing forward and sealed off from the trunk. But I have some very capable guys on my team who are gonna give me a hand so it shouldn't be all too bad. I might even try out DD's Compact High Efficiency box with the port loading off the side of the trunk to see how that sounds and to have something to fall back on should the sub/port forward idea not work out. That's what i'm gonna do, as stated in my first post, especially if running 2400+ rms wouldn't be feasible on stock electrical. That pretty much takes care of the AQ2200 idea....actually, I didn't know my amp was strapable so I'd have just gotten another AQ1200 and strapped them. I'll pass on the Fi stuff, I think a DD 2512 on 1200rms would blow my current setup out of the water too, but I guess time will tell. I haven't gotten worked up yet, just speaking my mind the same as you did. If you insist on clogging up my thread with worthless posts like the one I replied to then I'll continue to call you out on it, so don't take what I said as me attempting to tell where you can or can't go rather as me pointing out to you that it would be more appreciated and helpful if you answered the question(s) instead of posting that nonsense.Now you're splitting hairs......I understand that the subs aren't "seeing" the full 870 rms when you take into consideration the efficiency of the amp, gain setting, impedance rise, etc., as well as the fact that music is dynamic not static. But that's getting way deeper than necessary, IMO...my comments were based on rated power of the amp, not actual numbers measured...didn't think I'd need to explain that. My electrical is just fine for my system as it stands, I rarely drop below 14.4, staying between 14.6 and 15.0 for the most part.

So here are your answers, the reason why you upper bass frequencies could be lacking could be do to amp settings or box tuning among other things. How do you know its lacking at 44Hz and up did you do a sweep with some tones to see where its cutting off? I dont see why your new sub shouldnt be louder since it is made for a different goal and tuned much higher with more power, that sounds like a given. Nobody could honestly tell you, just make sure you do the install right and build a good enclosure. Yeah you will have problems running those amount of watts without doing the Big 3 Wiring, Secondary Battery or Two and an HO Alternator. Or like stated earlier, which is the best advice keep your amp and run it at one ohm. Find you some subwoofers or a subwoofer that can take on the AQ 1200D at ohm, build a nice box tuned higher than what you want (get a FI Car Audio BL with BP Power and it will blow your current setup out the water). Nobody woke me up and this ain't church so no need to preach. Besides, he had his facts wrong. If you can't come in here and answer some questions and help people out then you can stay out of my thread cause there's no need for your unhelpful and ignorant comments. That's all Calm down, dont get emotional. You gotta understand your gonna need power to make power, I go where I please buddy. You dont even know what your running your amp at, just because it is rated at 870 watts doesnt mean that is what setting you have it on at that volume level, does mean it is playing at the wattage for every second, doesnt mean you have the electrical to make it reach that wattage without clipping if so (I could go on and on). So you dont know it your doubling the rms to those subs or just a little more than rated.

Thanks for waking him up and preaching the facts.

No, not yet. My stock alt is 105a. I have an SVR deep cycle battery under the hood and will definitely do the Big 3 It's not loud enough...I want it louder overall, not just be able to hit the highs better. The funny thing about my current setup is that it's what was recommended to me by ID directly! I'm not going to get rid of the subs until I settle on something that i'm good with so I'll have plenty of time to experiment and what not.

People have put subs in their doors before. By the time you add the weight of a subwoofer, amplifier, fiberglass/etc.....you may be in need of new door hinges. You also have to consider the subwoofer you plan to use and if you can work an adequate enclosure into the door. Are you wanting to do this just for the "wow" factor?

No that means he did something right if he can keep all that sound in his car. People like you and everyone else who thinks there system is made for others to hear and not themselves are the one's who are ruining car audio for the rest of us. You need to respect others privacy and not let them hear your system, it is yours to hear and not theres if that was the case then everybody would have a system. We are respectful, that is why we dont like it. A pucking Men! X3......Welcome to SSA wow you guys are running 3000 and 7000 watts and its only for your ears.Hard to believe you dont crank it up at a red light.

then you guys should leave vehicle stock unless competing...

i agree. it shouldnt have to be black and white. everyone looks at it like there should be no shades of grey. i prefer spl subs, with sq mids and highs... and i feel like whenever i mention this, people think im committing a crime. EDIT: and when i say sound quality, i dont mean the rediculous measures some people on these forums go to just to make the sound quality a tiny bit better. i mean mids and highs that were designed for sq. im not really that educated on mids and highs, nor have i been exposed to much in person, but the mids and highs that i heard that just get really loud, that have similar sound quality to a stock door speaker, i cant stand those. This isn't about what you like it is about mis-using a term. I think you are also misapplying SPL as well though as I'd bet you wouldn't (and couldn't) have an SPL bass setup with your "SQ" front stage. I'd also bet that what you call and SQ front stage isn't anywhere near the category. You are trying to fit into some ideal parameters to make yourself feel like you fit. Don't, instead just like what you like and describe how it is. BTW an SQ front stage by definition has midbass that is of the same level as the subs...

Honestly speaking, I don't give a shit if anyone around me can hear my system or not, why should I care? The smokers don't give a damn if I like the smell of the nasty ass cigs they smoke next to me at the red light or if that smoke gets in my car so why should I care about if they like my loud beat or if it shakes the hell out of their car? I bump when I wanna bump, period! Now I don't go slappin' through a neighborhood at 11pm but during the daytime I get it in!

Why must you come off as a sarcastic dick, despite being a mod? You don't know what I'm impressed by, I set my standards high.

Sound quality is accurate reproduction of the source. That's not subjective. Your personal preference is subjective. Is it possible to quantify all aspects of a systems sound quality? Well, theoretically it's probably possible however practically it's pretty difficult. But that doesn't mean you can substitute your personal preference of "sounds good" for accuracy to the source and still call it "sound quality", especially if the measurable properties do not coincide with an accurate reproduction of the source. So judges listening to a system and scoring it based on what they hear is not subjective? Maybe you're the one who should be quiet instead of making such ridiculous and clearly contradicting statements. He stated it correctly. Sound Quality is the accurate reproduction of a source. Nothing subjective about that. The judging however is completely subjective based on the fact that there is no real way to measure SQ.

Sound quality is accurate reproduction of the source. That's not subjective. Your personal preference is subjective. Is it possible to quantify all aspects of a systems sound quality? Well, theoretically it's probably possible however practically it's pretty difficult. But that doesn't mean you can substitute your personal preference of "sounds good" for accuracy to the source and still call it "sound quality", especially if the measurable properties do not coincide with an accurate reproduction of the source. So judges listening to a system and scoring it based on what they hear is not subjective? Maybe you're the one who should be quiet instead of making such ridiculous and clearly contradicting statements. Good try noobie. But you fail completely. You are incorrectly assuming that sound quality competitions are the epitome of the definition of sound quality. Ideally that would be the case, however it is not. Yes, the judging is left open to the judge's own preference and this is one of the inherent flaws to this competition format. That fact doesn't alter the proper definition of the term "sound quality", it only makes the "competitions" subject to personal preference rather than accuracy to the source. This is a flaw in the format and style of the competition, not in the correct definition of the term "sound quality". The idea of "sound quality" being accuracy to the source extends beyond the arena of car audio. Home audio enthusiasts aren't sitting around biting their nails waiting for the outcome of a car audio SQ competition so they can define the sound quality of their home systems. Most of them scoff at car audio in general given the harsh environment and poor results without major modifications to a vehicle. It doesn't take much more than a modest bookshelf system and subwoofer to surpass high-level car audio systems in most regards. So, to think that car audio SQ competitions define and epitomize the term sound quality is laughable at best. If anything, the term "sound quality" may be a misnomer when being used to describe those competition formats. Your post does nothing but demonstrate your complete ignorance and complete lack of understanding while simultaneously making yourself look like a buffoon. You did however do a great job of inserting your foot in your mouth..... So who's to say if the reproduction of the source is accurate, a machine or a person? Therein lies the subjective nature of SQ so my point is stated correctly, EVERYTHING subjective about that! Your point is incorrectly stated. There are certain practical methods that can be used to objectively gauge accuracy to the source, and other less practical methods that could be employed. But our ability or inability to quantify every aspect of a system doesn't alter the definition of the terms. Sound quality is accuracy to the source. Personal preference is what you are describing. For example, someone might personally like a system with exaggerated low end response and higher 2nd order distortion as this generally sounds pleasing to the ear.....but that doesn't make it accurate to the source, and it doesn't make it anymore "sound quality" just because they like it more. Yet again, you fail. And to answer your question, a machine or quantity of measurements would be best used to identify accuracy to the source. Humans ears are actually pretty lousy, and we are inherently biased and preference based. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with setting up your system based on your personal preference. It's designed for you, and should sound how you want it to sound. But don't confuse your (or anyone else's) personal preference for "sound quality", which is accuracy to the source. They are two different and distinct entities. What sounds best to you may not be the most accurate reproduction of the source.

As I understand it, a 12db/octave slope will give a smoother sound in comparison to a 24dv/octave slope which will allmost creat a edge to the sound. Isn't 24 db/octave more useful in LPF for subs? I'm a novice in this field, but from what I have gathered by googling around a bit using a 24db/octave slope for mids/tweeters will not be really good. The sound will be unnatural and unrealistic. Am I mistaken here? I wouldn't agree with that link. For whatever reason, they are trying to describe crossover filters in subjective terms which is pretty ridiculous considering the resultant sound is going to be determined by much more than simply the crossover slope, and the necessary slope is determined by much more than a subjective "target sound". 24db/oct filters are perfectly fine and commonly used. My processor allows slopes up to 30db/oct, and I've used them to highpass my midbass because it allowed to me run a slightly lower crossover frequency while still keeping excursion under control and not killing the driver's power handling. My advise would be to generally ignore that link's "description" of crossover filters. Achieving good sound is the ultimate goal, how you get there is less important.

You really just don't get it, do you? It apparently isn't that common as you obviously still lack the knowledge. You argued that SQ is subjective since SQ competitions rely on a subjective judge. I exposed the flaw in your premise, which completely dismantled your entire argument. How was this "common knowledge" when you obviously lacked it? If the rest of my post was "common knowledge" then you wouldn't still be posting as the "knowledge" that SQ is not subjective but personal preference is would be something you possessed. So far your best defense has been to complain about my use of the word "fail", which I hate to say was in the english language long before the internet came to be. There are a fairly wide array of measurements which can indicate how "true to the source" a system will be. The further these measurements stray from ideal, the further from accuracy the system will fall. I even gave a specific example in my previous post of a situation that might sound "pleasing" on a preference level but would lack accuracy. Perhaps you should brush up on reading comprehension? What the fuck are you talking about? That's exactly what this portion of the discussion is revolving around. The definition is completely different if you allow SQ to be subjective rather than objective. If sound quality is subjective then the only way to define sound quality is by what sounds good to each individual personally, which means sound quality will be defined differently for each individual. Someone could define "sound quality" as having 150db of bass with no importance placed on the other 7 octaves of audible sound. How does this make any sense to you? This is what you are arguing in favor of. If you fail (OMG, I said it again) to understand this, then there's no point in continuing the discussion. Someone else said "SQ is completely subjective" I said, "No it's not" You said "Yes it is! But don't make this about the definition of SQ or you're straying off topic!" How does that make any sense to you either? The standard suite of properly conducted audio measurements is a good place to start. Anomalies being indicative of inaccuracies, the larger the anomaly and/or greater quantity of anomalies the further from accurate the system is. It's not perfect, but it's far better than calling everything subjective and allowing anyone's own personal preference to suffice as a definition of "sound quality".

Nobody here cares that compete, and being an SQ competitor or judge doesn't make you right. The laws of biology and physics are the same regardless of your status in the realm of "sound quality" competition. Whether or not you understand those laws of biology and physics is also completely independent of your status in the realm of "sound quality" competition. There are a great number of competitors who believe some pretty ridiculous things that are completely contradictory to the laws of physics. False, and if you understood how we as humans localized sound you would understand why the idea that just because we can hear it we can localize it is wrong. That right there is a fundamental flaw in your argument and gap in your understanding. Did one of those SQ judges tell you that? LOL....wow. What you are saying is frivolous, unnecessary and wrong. In an automobile there is no reason to need to have subwoofers mounted in front of you.

There are a large quantity of subs that will provide great response infinite baffle. Your post however provided little to no information. A good starting point would be to know what diameter you are looking for or what your space will allow for, the quantity of subwoofers you are looking for, a budget, and if you are limited to any particular final impedance to match your amplifier.

Point of the thread is why we don't like it when people use terms they don't understand. SQLMonte is just proving he doesn't at all understand the terms either. Simple really. SQ is not subjective as accurate reproduction is finite, judging an SQ competition however is.

Seriously? You are the one refuting science, why should we go into Aural 101for you? Let's make this more productive and why don't you tell us how humans can perceive where an omnidirectional source is that is playing only below 40Hz. Then we can continue.

You aren't coherent. Two different things. Judging and reality are NOT the same.

Imagine that no, reply.