Impious

You call me "so critical over nothing" yet ironically you're the one who ran to the internet to laugh at a guy for mispronouncing the name of a product. Because he's a competitor, he's supposed to be aware of every product available? He probably just competes in smaller shows where the lesser known brands aren't prominent. Stop being so critical over nothing.

I've never really understood why people think it's so funny when someone mispronounces the name of some small internet company they've never heard of before. I'm sure you've mispronounced names of companies, products and people you were unfamiliar with all throughout your life. I doubt those people ran off and made a post on an internet forum about it.

Several reasons. Many times they can be covered in gook which keeps from getting a solid connection. Some seatbelt bolts and seat bolts, while securely attached to the vehicle mechanically, don't have a great "electrical" connection to the rest of the vehicle. And depending upon how someone connects their terminal to the bolt, there may be very little contact area (if they install the terminal above carpet or padding, for example). The short of it is, the quality of the connection can be hit or miss....so why take the chance? Create your own ground somewhere that you know will be a solid connection and bypass the entire possibility of having an issue. You might not notice an issue (alt whine, etc) but that doesn't necessarily mean you have great ground.

Unfortunately "worth" is a matter of perspective. Amplifiers are not really that important in the grand scheme of things, so I personally look for the most affordable amp that has the features, quality and power that I'm looking for. DD normally doesn't fall within that criteria for me personally. Others however may feel they are well worth any premium paid compared to more affordable amplifiers.

Nice pricing Aaron. If someone is in need of quality bump on the cheap, these will definitely fill that need.

Was that a pun? Maybe we should have used the 25% coverage method ?

Well played, Aaron. Well played.

Fatmat is asphalt if I recall correctly, which makes it an automatic no. If you're interested in sound deadening products, the first place you need to visit is www.sounddeadenershowdown.com Don @ SDS is a great guy and offers great products. Second, it would be helpful if you could inform us on what exactly it is you are trying to accomplish. Different deadening objectives requires different methods and, ultimately, a different product mix to achieve those goals. Just saying "I want to buy sound deadening, what's good?" isn't a very good question.

Hey man, it looks like a deer might have ran into the side of your truck.

Image Dynamics make SQ subs, even just the entry level ID series subs run about $150ea, need I say more? Here are rebadged ID12v3's for $80 shipped. Need I say more? REF-TM12.4 - Image Dynamics 12" Dual 4 Ohm OEM Tidal Audio Subwoofer

The 8053 introduced noise into my system. I think they were just very picking on grounds. I loved the 34230, however. That amp had some balls.

You've been told wrong.

Clipping indicators, even if accurate (which isn't a given), are only useful if the individual setting the gains understands how to use them.

If you are just look for cheap and "loud" without much concern to actual performance I'd say skip building them and just buy the predesigned passives from partsexpress with a xover frequency that isn't going to fry your tweeters. You probably wouldn't be able to build a pair cheaper.

Only because you either completely lack reading comprehension or are unable to see just how ignorant you are. You apparently failed to comprehend my first response which demonstrated your idiocy in gauging sound quality based on a competition format. You also apparently missed the following two direct quotes from the above post; "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?" "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"." I'm not going to detail every individual measurement available and what they mean as this is research you are fully capable of conducting on your own. The fact that measurements exist is sufficient for the purposes of this thread to establish that it's possible to objectively express accuracy or lack there-of in a system to the extent possible. However, you clearly lack the mental fortitude to see past your own erroneous viewpoint, so I can fully understand why this concept eludes you. YOU ARE STILL COMPLETELY OBLIVIOUS TO THE FACT THAT COMPETITION FORMAT DOES NOT DEFINE SOUND QUALITY. There is nothing else to say. No explanation can apparently convey this to you as I have already covered it. You are an idiot if you can't see past this simple point. Go back and read my very first response. I guess all of these speaker engineers forgo any acoustical measurements and just call in SQ competition judges in order to evaluate their speakers prior to production. Because acoustical measurements don't tell us anything about the performance of a speaker. It's these judges that define sound quality. It's the format of a car audio competition that happens to have the term "sound quality" in their title that provides the definition of sound quality to the rest of the world. And sadly, for whatever reason, this makes sense to you and is what you are arguing in support of. What's pathetic is you have no actual rebuttal to this. All you can do is pretend that nothing important was said when every point you made was shown to be ignorant, and then cling to this moronic idea that sound quality is defined by a car audio competition format. You either haven't read this thread, or haven't understood it. LOL.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

I'm well aware SQ competitions include an RTA measurement. But the main portion of their "sound quality" scoring comes from judges listening to the vehicles. SQ competitions also used to (still might, I don't know) measure maximum peak SPL. But we wouldn't call a singular measurement of peak SPL a measure of "SQ" just because it's used in an SQ competition, would we? An RTA isn't a singular measure of sound quality, nor is it a particularly useful measurement. If you don't know much about a particular topic, it's typically best to stay silent.

Can I ask what that question has to do with anything relevant to this thread?

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.

More verbal diarrhea Stop it. An RTA can't do jack shit for SQ and IMO aren't even useful for setting up your system. Amusing since through work I have access to one of the best ones in the world, but no interest in "using" it to tune my cars FR. lol... just as i had the rare oportunity to use an rta, Im on the fence about the rta. Flat was much different then i was expecting I think it helped me in some ways but i sorta see where your coming from. Mind if i ask your option of "flat" vs what sounds good to you? For me flat made me loose a good amount of midbass (lol i have a peak at 100hz like no other) and to be flat all the way to 20k was way way way too much tweeter then i like. Before i started the 10 16 and 20k weren't even measuring on the rta at all and while i did agree i needed a little more its just a little much for my preference The topic of proper frequency response measurements, interpretation of those measurements, adjustment of the system based on those measurements and of the relevant theories for doing so is actually an extremely involved and lengthy subject. The short of it is, a standard RTA is generally the wrong tool for the job. Taking one or two measurements with a standard RTA is the wrong method. As a consequence, the adjustments based on those measurements will be of little usefulness or accuracy......and we would also need to explain the various ideologies related to "target" frequency response, etc.