Cheesemind

I think Audioque subs love high tuning, and I've heard sound pretty good for SPL subs. Good price on them too.

Yah, the electrical question is a weird one. My friend had 2 Sony Xplod 12" subs and a Sony Xplod "800" watt amp, and his lights dimmed like CRAZY. People would have suggested a big 3, and a battery for him. I helped him upgrade, and he got a Sundown 1000D, and a Phoenix gold 80.4, and has no dimming what so ever, on the exact same electrical. No clue what it was, we did the install ourselves and used 1/0, and no dimming at all, even at max. So I don't know...I'd just put the amp in, listen to it how you like to listen to it, and see what happens, you might not need anything.

This is what I'm waiting for before I upgrade. As soon as the 2000D comes out I'm coppin it, and 2 Icons. God I can't wait. PM me if the Icons are gonna be out of stock again though, cause I don't want to have to wait. The last out of stock phase sucked, and I had to settle for something else Bwahaha, I love good SQ subs and Sundown amps... My chit gets loud as hell, sounds good as hell, and doesn't hurt your ears. Everyone loves it! My friend has a louder system with 2 L7's, but damn they sound like chit lol.

Sorry for the dumb question, but where's it at?

I'm so glad you rushed the 2000D. I have a feeling it'll turn out to be a wise move with all the 1000 RMS subs out there. I'm buying a few right off the bat as soon as they come. Can't wait!!

Yah, I woulda put that one off for a while too

And just for information sakes. I swapped out a JL 1000/1 for a Sundown 1000, because my subs could be wired to 1 ohm, and I figured I'd save the JL for subs that required 2 ohms, as I didn't have any amps that could do 1000 @ 2 ohms. Well, the Sundown was audibly louder in a direct swapout with the JL 1000/1. Dunno why, but it was plain, and a shocker to my friend, who swears by JL. So if you can run your subs at 1 ohm, I'd suggest a Sundown if it's cheaper than what you're being offered for the 2 above.

Doesn't more wire resistance just mean less power gets back to the amp? I don't get the advantage?

Im sure it was wrong. look at your factory fuse box, it has fuse for the alt in it. why would aftermarket alts be any different? My stock alt to batt didn't have a fuse, and my 1/0 gauge run doesn't either. Yah I'm running a HO alt in my other vehicle, and did the big 3 in it just running 4 gauge from alt to bat, with no fuse either. Never had a problem, I had the local shop do my big 3 though, and they told me I didn't need more than 4 gauge and refused to use 1/0 even though I offered to pay extra.

more wire, better current flow. and sometimes its hard to get 2+/0, so more runs of 1/0 will do the same, How do you know if you need more than 1 run of 1/0 gauge? Does anyone know the max each wire can conduct, or does that purely depend on the wire? Is there a rough estimate? Like 4000 watts can transfer through 1/0 or something like that? 10' of 1/0 Gauge is "only" 350 amps I believe. So unless you're running over 3k watts, you probably don't need more than 1 run of 1/0 right? Also, since I have a 200A alt, I'd be fine using 4 gauge to do the big 3? Or should I just go 1/0 to be safe?

Lol, it's just pages and pages of "This comment has been removed by eBay. Learn more." I can't even see them, lol every one of his comments gets removed. You'll see his comment get blanked out, but the response isn't blanked out, and then his response to the response is blanked out. On another note, I didn't know you could have a blog or a guest book on ebay. It looks almost like myspace.

I always wondered about this too, but after reading this thread, I'm still confused lol. Does it matter? How does having a seperate chamber differ from a shared chamber? Anyone really know?

I didn't start chit with anyone on CA.COM. I started talking about the conspiracy in the Lounge over there where supposedly "anything goes", and people were calling me a "chink" and using racist slurs, but I started revealing information about the Jewish conspiracy and had a bunch of people attack me and ban me without reason. They literally had no reason when they banned me, and I found out later that the admin says he was Jewish and that's why he banned me. My crime there was revealing information that certain admins didn't want on the board. I just wish I would have gotten a warning, because having been in the Lounge for quite a while, I noticed there wasn't anything that was supposed to be "off limits" when it came to the topics of conversation. If they would have told me not to talk about Jews or a Jewish conspiracy I would have listened. I just got banned instantly though, permanently. Things like that is what makes me believe it's a Jewish conspiracy rather than a Freemasonry conspiracy. I can talk about freemasonry being behind it on a message board all I want, but if I mention Jewish connections, I get banned pretty fast. Why is that? had NOTHING to do with jews. NOTHING. it had to do with you turning into a pathetic ethug. http://www.caraudio.com/forum/showthread.php?t=359499 Oh it had to do with Jews. You're not linking the threads in which I made no derogatory comments what so ever and got banned. Those threads were the reason the mods stayed on me in the first place. Also, it was the mod that created the "e-thugging" thread, and egged me on. He eggs me on, and dares me to come, says I won't do it, and then realizes I will and bans me. Obviously they were scared, or they woulda waited until afterwards to ban me. They were playing what alot of people call "hangman games" and it's why people hate that site. The mod starts a thread in order to get me to do something ban worthy. He starts a thread to get me going, when I had made a comment that snitching to the IRS deserves an ass beating. He makes a thread, egging me to come do it myself. So then I say that I will, and I get banned for being an e-thug. If it wasn't allowed, why not just say so. The point was to ban me because I was revealing too much information and there were Jewish mods that didn't like it (I was told by one himself). So whatever.

Speculation obviously, since you used the word "probably." I'd also love to see you find a farmer anywhere in the US that uses a toyota or honda truck, let alone one that's 15 years old, which a large percentage of farmers use trucks older than that. I say farmers because those are people that use the trucks everyday for purposes they are designed for. Not to mention that problems 15 years out are at least 95% dependent on how the vehicle was treated for the first 15. People who buy toyotas, hondas, etc., drive on the highway. People who buy ford and chevy actually have work to do. Yeah, definitely speculation, said probably because most of the really old cars I've owned have been hondas or toyotas, and were the only ones i've ever owned out to 200k miles. But you're right about trucks. I'd never want a honda or toyota truck, unless I used it for gas mileage and never had to haul anything with it... So you're right about that, and I live in Missouri (right next to ya) and there are a ton of Farmers here, and they all use GMC, Ford, or Chevy...most of the arguments are Ford/Chevy round here And trying to insinuate that people who buy Toyotas and Hondas don't work Pfftt*

Where have you been? http://www.jdpower.com/autos/ratings/depen...ge-#page-anchor Mercury and Cadillac are rated ahead of Toyota & Acura and so on. The one thing the big three have always done has made reliable trucks, and ones that actually have torque so you can do something with them. "For a 14th consecutive year, Lexus ranks highest in vehicle dependability, improving by 25 problems per 100 vehicles since 2007 to achieve a score of 120 PP100. Following in the top five rankings are Mercury, Cadillac, Toyota and Acura, respectively. In addition, Lexus garners six segment awards

LOL, you're right, in no way was it a scientific test. I'm just saying, I bought 3 fords in a row and had problems with all of them. You're right, it probably has to do with the fact that they all had 100k miles on them when I bought them. But the Civic I had had over 100k miles on it too, and i took less care of it than the 3 fords, and still had no problems with it. I currently have a Grand Prix with 100k miles and haven't had a problem with it either. Of course it doesn't mean pontiacs or hondas are better than Ford. It just means I've had bad luck with fords, and good luck with hondas or pontiacs. My luck was so bad with ford, I will never buy another one, unless it's an unbeatable steal of a deal.

I've had almost the opposite luck as you guys as far as Ford and GM. I've owned 3 fords. Ford Taurus (transmission went out, wasn't worth fixing) Lincoln Towncar (Air ride went out, cost way too much to fix, then had little things go wrong with it before I hit a deer so I got a new car) Lincoln Mark 8 (got after the towncar crapped out, put a system in it, and then had the worst electrical problem ever. The people at the dealership couldn't even figure it out, and I had to trade it in. Also the headlights were discontinued and the replacement assembly cost 900$ (for a pair of headlights). The air-ride also went out in this vehicle and was a 800$ fix. A few other things went wrong with it too. I actually gave up on American cars after all this because the very first car I owned was a Honda Civic when I was very young. I never took care of this car at all, didn't do any maintenance, no oil changes, never replaced air filters, or topped off fluids (I had no clue when I was a kid), and this car lasted forever. I ended up driving it til 200k and then the water pump failed and I just gave up on it. I swore to only buy foreign cars after this, yet I went to the used car dealership and found a sweet looking 4 door Pontiac Grand Prix. This car has been running so good, and looks so nice, that I plan to just replace the motor and tranny when it goes out. Pontiac has me sold on this one, as the handling is so nice, and the engine has been so reliable I feel it's a good value, but if something happens and I can't find another Grand Prix for a good value, I'll probably end up getting a Honda or Toyota. But then again, reliability means more to me than looks, so that's probably why.

Omg, John McCain's concession speech only confirms my belief that he was a fall guy for this election. Obama was set up to win from the start.

Yah, Jacob is awesome. He replaced 2 Sundown amps I didn't even purchase from him because they were broke and I was having bad luck. I mean, with service like that I feel I owe him. I have since purchased 5 more sundown amps, and will keep buying them as I upgrade. I'm really waiting for the Sundown 2000.

I chose Cheesemind, because where I'm from, "cheese" is slang for money. So I picked this name to represent "Money Minded". But I get into lots of debates with people, and lots of people like to say I have "holes in my head". LOL, my fault for picking the name, but I use it on every site, so I continue to use it.

Thanks for mentioning that, I'll find it and post it because it is VERY interesting. I mean interesting to a point where I don't think someone could have planned it. Almost as if some higher power orchestrated it or something. If people did plan this that far ahead, we're doomed, as they're FAR ahead of the curve than we are LOL.

I can. and a single world government is about the dumbest thing that could ever happen. Umm, a world government is definitely planned in the near future for us, you can deny it, but it's going to happen. When it does, will you believe then? I believe there is already evidence of it, let me find a few quotes. http://www.svpvril.com/nwo.html "We are not going to achieve a new world order without paying for it in blood as well as in words and money." Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., in Foreign Affairs (July/August 1995) "Today, America would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order [referring to the 1991 LA Riot]. Tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told that there were an outside threat from beyond [i.e., an "extraterrestrial" invasion], whether real or *promulgated* [emphasis mine], that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this *scenario*, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the World Government." Dr. Henry Kissinger, Bilderberger Conference, Evians, France, 1991 "The drive of the Rockefellers and their allies is to create a one-world government combining supercapitalism and Communism under the same tent, all under their control.... Do I mean conspiracy? Yes I do. I am convinced there is such a plot, international in scope, generations old in planning, and incredibly evil in intent." Congressman Larry P. McDonald, 1976, killed in the Korean Airlines 747 that was shot down by the Soviets "We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries." David Rockefeller, founder of the Trilateral Commission, in an address to a meeting of The Trilateral Commission, in June, 1991. "No one will enter the New World Order unless he or she will make a pledge to worship Lucifer. No one will enter the New Age unless he will take a Luciferian Initiation." David Spangler, Director of Planetary Initiative, United Nations "The world can therefore seize the opportunity [Persian Gulf crisis] to fulfill the long-held promise of a New World Order where diverse nations are drawn together in common cause to achieve the universal aspirations of mankind." George Herbert Walker Bush "In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn't such a great idea after all." Strobe Talbot, President Clinton's Deputy Secretary of State, as quoted in Time, July 20th, l992. "We shall have world government whether or not you like it, by conquest or consent." Statement by Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) member James Warburg to The Senate Foreign Relations Committee on February 17th, l950 "The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes." Benjamin Disraeli, first Prime Minister of England, in a novel he published in 1844 called Coningsby, the New Generation There are more, I don't want to paste them here, but if you're interested you can go to the link I posted. And definitely feel free to research these quotes to see if they're true. You should do this with any information you don't believe or that is contrary to what you already believe. Research it, don't just trust anyone, me or the government or media.

Exactly, it is the very banks that caused this situation, because of predatory practices in order to benefit themselves at the cost of the consumer. The very banks we're bailing out (at interest) in order to prevent economic collapse. It is the banks that control the economy, not us, and the blame therefore shouldn't be placed on the people. Sure people could have not taken out those stupid loans, and run up their credit cards, but at the same time, people will do what they feel is necessary to survive and get by. But I believe the banks intentionally put us into this situation, because there isn't enough money in circulation to pay off the national debt, and therefore the only way they can get everything is to take the property as collateral. They do it illegally too, but it's too complicated for me to explain here, but a good explanation of it can be found in the movie Zeitgeist Addendum: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7065205277695921912

LOL, sorry man I left to take a friend home. I don't see what there is to debate about though, the Supreme Court has stated that the constitution framers were not just talking about the militia, and that we have a right to self defense. And anyone who reads either of our comments, they will see that it is YOU that is tooting their own horn. Other than my IQ test result (which has no bearing) I have not posted anything about myself to "toot my own horn", whereas you've bragged about your military experience and your degree in law. Ok we get it. Only people like you, who have trained in using weapons, should be allowed to protect themselves. I understand, you and only you are smart enough to be able to handle such complicated equipment. Checkmate, you win.

You're wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendm...es_Constitution The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the pre-existing individual right to possess and carry weapons (i.e., "keep and bear arms") in case of confrontation.[1] Codification of the right to keep and bear arms into the Bill of Rights was influenced by a fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or select militia,[2] since history had shown taking away the people's arms and making it an offense for people to keep them was the way tyrants eliminated resistance to suppression of political opponents.[3] In District of Columbia v. Heller (June 26, 2008), the Supreme Court ruled that self-defense is a central component of the right.[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ___ (2008) is a legal case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for private use. It was the first Supreme Court case in United States history to directly address whether the right to keep and bear arms is a right of individuals or a collective right that applies only to state-regulated militias. On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Parker v. District of Columbia, 478 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007).[1] The Court of Appeals had struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, and determined that handguns are "Arms" that may not be banned by the District of Columbia (Washington, D.C.), also striking down the portion of the law that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock." No, I am not and you must be below 90 IQ points. I actually studied the constitution with REAL PHD holding professors of LAW and all of them had actually practiced law. 4 out of 6 of them agree with me, the 2 that did not said that I was the first person to actually make them consider changing their views on the subject and still use my model to help their students to this day. The court cases you site do not address the portion of my arguement that deals with the CONTEXT of the amendment in the time with which it was written. During the American Revolution, MOST men considered it their duty to serve. Only the very wealthy could even afford to own a firearm because of a lack of mass production. So only people of wealth or those who served in a state militia are those who would ever even touch a firearm. The "right to self defense" that the Heller case uses comes from a prepostorous notion that most are going to be the victim of a home invasion. That is why it does not cover a conceal and carry element, which in most states you need a LICENSE to perform legally. READ the case law before you go citing "facts" that is called research. Although the men that came together to write the Constitution were forward thinkers and some of the most intelligent of their day, even they could never have forseen the day when a home invasion crime would have been viewed as a common happening, even though it is not actually very common at all even today. Also since MOST men served in a state militia as volunteers they were not about to try to over run that state by means of force or martial law because it would jeopardize that which they about to fight for... a new FORM of government not just a new nation. Hence the CONTEXT portion of my arguement. In no court case you can sight will you find an opinion handed down by a ruling magistrate or body of magistrates that addresses the CONTEXT in which the law WAS written. You will only find opinions that address a modern interpretation of the literal writing. A magistrate is better known as a judge. The magistrate hands down rulings that are also referred to as opinions. The law that was drafted as in response to this ruling is a terrible piece of legislation that states the person must feel as if their life is in imminent and immediate danger (added to circumvent the ruling overturning the unloaded disassembled portion that was struck down) to even have the weapon in a functioning capacity. That you even cite the ruling or the law is laughable. Wikipedia to back your arguement is even more preposterous. I also own many weapons including handguns and rifles (two of which I doubt you will ever even see in person) so I can appreciate the percieved "right to bear arms" style of logic. However I am trained (I have spent literally years of my life firing weapons of every type) and hold a license. To issue a firearm to someone without such training is an egregious oversite and misinterpretation of the amendment. Nowhere in the second amendment does it even imply to the "right" of self defense. Try again. So you're saying the Supreme Court is wrong? Because they say the right isn't just involving militias, and includes the right to self defense. You say wikipedia is laughable, but anyone can verify the case outside of wikipedia to find it accurate. To me, you saying 4 out of 6 professors agree with you on this topic, is laughable. Did you just recently go back to your professors to ask them? Or are you full of chit? BTW, your professors might hold PHD's but they're not on the supreme court. Nor the Circuit Court of Appeals who also agreed that the 2nd amendment didn't just include trained personnel. I think you just want to toot your own horn. Because you're trained at using the weapon, only people of your elect should be able to own them. HAH. Don't hate all gun owners because alot of people are ignorant. Some of us merely own them to defend against home invasions. I would rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it. I was waiting for this. This is where you say there is no conspiracy theory and that I am a conspiracy theorist. As soon as someone pokes holes in your supposed logic you go crying that your view is not some conspiracy theory but all others are. Yes, I am telling you that the Supreme court does make incorrect rulings and bills that violate the Constitution are passed then repealed. That is the beauty of the Constitution. That mistakes can happen and be corrected BY THE PEOPLE is central to it's design; you know, checks and balances. There are still laws on the books that make it illegal to curse in public places (Michigan had one until recently) that clearly violates the freedom of speech because unless you curse at someone then it is not covered in the "fighting words" style of logic that has been handed down and now used. Due process violations were common practice until some of the later amendments. There are way to many examples to list. Yes, I do think that you need to training on any type of weapon should you choose to own one. I also think that those classes should be included in the price and purchase of the weapon. I do not hate gun owners, not even the ignorant ones, yourself excluded of course you could not ever be percieved as ignorant(sarcasm... you probably see it ). I just feel bad because they would rather own handguns than some type of education. Check and mate. Wow you've lost it man. For one, I haven't seen you poke any holes in my logic, and assuming I would call you a conspiracy theorist over it is insane and rather stupid. As far as the Supreme Court making incorrect rulings, sure it's possible, but they can surely be trusted in judging the 2nd amendment over your professors. You just want to toot your own horn. And about my IQ, the last IQ test I've taken I got a 141. If someone shows me how to print screen from firefox I'll upload the image. I don't see why it should matter, but you're not the first person to comment about my IQ in this thread so that's why I'm posting it. Alot of people think just because I have some beliefs that are contrary to public knowledge, it means I must be stupid. Many people have been ridiculed for telling the truth in a time when it was not popular to speak it, such as Galileo. I merely have done alot of research on the topic, and I feel it's my duty to inform my fellow Americans when that knowledge could very well help them in the future. It's probably the hero programming instilled in us since childhood, as me speaking out against the conspiracy might very well make me a target if what I believe is true, and therefore my best course of action in protecting myself would indeed be to be quiet about what I know. So in a sense, I'm sacrificing my life to tell people this information, because if what I'm saying is true, I could be killed (or called a terrorist) for it. But since so many people think I'm an idiot for my beliefs, here's my last IQ test score, and I'd be happy to post the image or take another one to prove I'm "above average": As if it takes a high IQ to realize people have the right to defend themselves, from other citizens or the government. If you'd like to take the test and post up your IQ, you can take it here: http://www.allthetests.com/tests/iq-test.php3 BTW, IQ tests don't show all areas of intelligence, such as intuition, so it's not accurate in any way to judge intelligence. There are many people who are street savvy in ways that would put a professor in shame, or socially savvy in ways I consider intelligent, that those tests don't gauge. In other words, just because someone has a low IQ score doesn't mean they're not telling the truth. You merely have to consider it a possibility and research it to find the truth for yourself.