Impious

I couldn't even get the hood open on my wife's van. Froze shut I suppose. The release cable wouldn't even budge.

Naive and ignorant statement to assume that's a significant metric. Plenty of people with really stupid ideas and questionable knowledge do well in competitions, both SPL and SQ.But just think of how much louder you could be if you actually understood science and testing.......

I missed the question on the book....Loudspeaker Design Cookbook is pretty much the bible in this hobby. It's boring as hell to read, but it's a must if you are serious about learning the technical side of the hobby.

I shoveled twice yesterday and you can't even tell.

Me neither and I'd love to see such snow soon. My arms and back are tired of shoveling it.

Don't fucking let it happen again. Now give me a huge discount on your product for the inconvienence !!

Keep in mind that rooms experience a "cabin gain" similar to what we experience in car audio, although not quite to the same extreme it exists none the less. There are some calculators out there that can help you predict this as it's based on the dimensions of your listening environment and placement of the subwoofer. Just the same as car audio, the response WinISD predicts will not be the same as you experience in your room. Without knowing the room gain you experience it'll be hard to design an enclosure with flat in-room response. I would check out Jeff's room gain calculator and see if you can get some idea for how the room behaves before you make any decision based on a WinISD modeled curve: http://audio.claub.net/software/jbabgy/jbagby.html

And they aren't really useful for that either. That is the point people are missing. Much less for the conclusions most of the readers seem to be drawing from it. And that is the most damaging part of these tests. People see "numbers", assume because they see numbers those numbers must mean something so it turns into fact and everyone starts using it to draw these conclusions when realistically the numbers aren't really good for anything, not even just for a "general idea". And that is regardless of the results...underrated, overrated....doesn't matter.

I sense you starting to get into the troll realm considering you already said you had no reason to post on this thread anymore...I see all of this as pointless bickering at this point, the point has been proven for all parties. The point is, this test is neither pinpoint accurate or inaccurate to the point of being invalid. It was performed to give a general idea of amplifier power. And it does just that. Everyone can dance around that fact all that they want, but it's still true.It's not true, now matter how many times you type it. And that clearly is not how people are interpreting the results consider the number of people using this test as "proof" the amp is "over rated", and then apparently using this single test to question the integrity of the entire brand. Blind leading the blind.

ohhh, so I really shouldn't look at those graphs a reference or a good representation of what to expect installed in my vehicle?For example, I look at this driver: http://www.usspeaker.com/ciare 1200sw-1.htm Now, by manufacture, it recommends 20hz-200hz. But looking at the graph, it "seems" to play relatively well up into about 1khz. So, just because it looks good on the graph, doesn't mean it plays good? Is that what you're saying? No, that response is only when the driver is facing directly in front of you. And this is with any driver. This normally isn't a problem with home audio as the drivers are more or less in front of you. So, then I suppose my next question is, exactly how do I go about choosing the proper and best fitting driver for my goals and application? Do I have to program every single drivers T/s ? You will want to consider those as well to make sure the low end suits your needs.....but TSP really only encapsulate the low frequency behavior of the driver....you need to also consider the high frequency response. As Q said you will need to consider how the driver will perform off axis, which isn't included in those response graphs but can be roughly figured by dividing the speed of sound by the diameter of the cone. You also need to consider how the inductance affects where the driver will begin to roll off on the top end....generally speaking you want to cross the driver about an octave below the inductance induced lowpass crossover frequency. You can determine this frequency with the formula f = Re / (2*Pi*Le)....inductance needs to be in H, normally in the parameters it's listed in mH. You also need to consider things like where the cone breaks up, distortion performance, etc. not all of it is easily attainable information, unfortunately. The response graph and impedance curve can give you some insight into the cone break up.

You are looking at 12" subwoofers. Not going to be the ideal driver for your goals, generally speaking. Pro audio is going to be where you need to look for a large driver that can play relatively high. That said I would probably suggest you step down to a 10" driver. You will probably want to run them in an enclosure to avoid massive door rattles, and pro audio drivers aren't going to play well with sealed enclosures or IB. So to find a driver that will work reasonably well in a sealed enclosure that might fit in your door I'd step down in size some. Not to mention it will open up the candidates quite a bit.

My parents kept most of my toys from when I was younger....8-12 or so. Almost all of them are played with so they aren't worth huge money individually but everything together I probably have several grand worth of toys in my parent's attic and some of them I brought home with me. I did see messing around on ebay that there are some Lego sets that bring big money. I never really had a ton of lego's. Don't know what happened to the sets I did have, probably in my parent's attic as well.

All the damn toys we had as kids....who would have thought they'd be worth money. http://www.ebay.com/itm/Batman-The-Animated-Series-BATMOBILE-1992-Kenner-EXTREMELY-RARE-NEW-UNOPENED-/181291085431?pt=US_Action_Figures&hash=item2a35ca6e77 Have one of those upstairs in my son's closet from when I was a kid. Granted mine's not unopened, but the car is still mint and I still have the box.

All things equal for a given output level the larger driver will have lower distortion since it will have less excursion for a given output level.

Do not use the IB drivers in a ported enclosure. The response will be terrible. That is not at all what they were designed for. If you are wanting to go ported then most definitely sell the IB drivers and purchase something else.

Honestly I don't see the point in blowing $90 on something you don't need just to "play around". It won't do anything useful for you and at that price point it probably won't have enough resolution to really let you "play" in any meaningful way.

Pretty simple. Calculate the volume of the sonotube and model the subs in that enclosure volume to see if you'd be happy with the response. The only issue with using IB subs in a sealed enclosure volume that is around or less than Vas is that the Q will rise to something higher than most listeners desire and the low frequency response will roll off higher compared to if they were IB. Also there will typically be a hump in the response where most IB drivers will model pretty well flat anechoic. No way to predict how much worse the Q, peak and low end will be without modeling them in the proposed volume. Worst case scenario you sell the IB subs and buy something more suitable. Is this for home audio or home theater? Big difference in requirements that will affect the decision.

Valid measurement procedures and processes don't change regardless of the area of interest. Car audio and quantum mechanics are exactly the same thing as far as measurement criteria are concerned...in order to provide meaningful results, proper test methodologies must be followed otherwise the results are meaningless. Again the fact this is lost on everyone hanging their hat on this and other clamp tests is part of the problem. I've yet to see any evidence to the contrary. Until proven otherwise it's an assumption that must be brought into question in order to objectively evaluate the results. Not just this clamp test, but any of them.Just to clarify that isn't the only objection. But it's a fundamental one, and everything else isn't even worth discussing until the accuracy of the equipment and uncertainty of the measurement has been properly verified and stated. Again the fact this is lost on everyone hanging their hat on this and every other clamp test is part of the problem.

Reread the thread. 95Honda and M5 both posted reasons why. No one supporting the test even responded to those posts with a meaningful reply. And frankly we've discussed clamp tests on this forum a couple dozen times. Last I checked the search function worked fine.... And if you were paying attention, you would have understood this was M5's point. The READER shouldn't HAVE to ask. A valid test conducted in a meaningful and useful manor would have that information presented as part of the details of the test. The very fact we would NEED to ask in itself supports the test's lack of credibility and the fact the tester either isn't aware of these factors or doesn't know how to calculate them, or more likely both.But because he's posted numbers, the internet assumes it's valid and meaningful and it's everyone else's job to prove why this isn't the case. That is exactly ass backwards of how science and metrology actually works in the "real world". The onus is on the tester to prove it's validity, not the other way around. And he hasn't done that, nor have you or anyone else supporting the test....but that doesn't keep the lemmings from jumping on board with it. Though you blissfully skipped over 95Hondas post where he stated he's had Fluke meter with a 25% variance while ranting about nobody citing examples of why the test is flawed. Selective memory? Don't you find the statement about one fluke meter being around 25% off from the actual results rather anecdotal? I've never heard of that issue being had elsewhere.And don't you find the fact we know nothing about the accuracy of the equipment used a little troubling before trusting the results? Obviously not, and that's the problem. You promote the results and how useful they are when you or anybody else knows nothing about them. You claim they are "close enough to count".....but the fact is you don't know, nor does anybody else. And that's one of the problems. Especially when people are using this test of unknown credibility and comparing it to manufacturer's rated power which is a specific measurement, and then making a determination of the amplifier based on that test. Think about it for just a second. Ask yourself why actual amplifier designers and manufacturer's and other's in the audio electronics industry spend tens of thousands of dollars on test equipment if a kid in a basement is capable of duplicating the results for a few hundred dollars? I don't think it's because these multi-million or billion dollar companies are that gullible, but I certain would think it's because the engineers understand proper testing methodology and what is necessary to achieve meaningful, repeatable results. Just because he can post some numbers doesn't mean they are useful, "real world" or "close enough to count".

Reread the thread. 95Honda and M5 both posted reasons why. No one supporting the test even responded to those posts with a meaningful reply. And frankly we've discussed clamp tests on this forum a couple dozen times. Last I checked the search function worked fine.... And if you were paying attention, you would have understood this was M5's point. The READER shouldn't HAVE to ask. A valid test conducted in a meaningful and useful manor would have that information presented as part of the details of the test. The very fact we would NEED to ask in itself supports the test's lack of credibility and the fact the tester either isn't aware of these factors or doesn't know how to calculate them, or more likely both. But because he's posted numbers, the internet assumes it's valid and meaningful and it's everyone else's job to prove why this isn't the case. That is exactly ass backwards of how science and metrology actually works in the "real world". The onus is on the tester to prove it's validity, not the other way around. And he hasn't done that, nor have you or anyone else supporting the test....but that doesn't keep the lemmings from jumping on board with it. Though you blissfully skipped over 95Hondas post where he stated he's had Fluke meter with a 25% variance while ranting about nobody citing examples of why the test is flawed. Selective memory? Because they like to believe "numbers" regardless of whether or not those numbers actually mean anything, but don't want to put forth the effort into considering why those numbers don't mean anything. They prefer subjectivity and "experience" over true objectivity......because that's all I see when I visit other forums. Threads like this and that thread on CACO are prime examples of that.

Who the hell are you? Get the hell out of this thread! Oh shit, you're the OP. My bad. Forgot where this all started. Hope it works out for. I haven't a clue about any of the units you mentioned as I don't stay current on HU's.....so I wasn't any help on selecting one.

Nick probably responded because there were multiple pages of people bashing his products and questioning his integrity and he wanted/needed to defend himself and his products. I wouldn't read much more into than that. Otherwise the only useless information in this thread is the link to the clamp test and those comments supporting the method.

There's something to be said for buying locally. Everyone likes to shop online, then something like this happens and they're up in arms about having to pay shipping.

Blind leading the blind.His equipment isn't calibrated.....so how do you know it's only off .01V That's one of the points....you don't. I don't. He doesn't. Therefore we can't call the test accurate. Because we don't know. And that's just one of the many reasons.

Just to clarify, higher preamp voltages do not "minimize" the source of noise. Higher preamp voltages increase the signal to noise ratio (SNR).....the level of the induced noise is the same, but the level of the signal is higher so the SNR is also higher. Saying the noise is minimized implies that the higher voltage has some inherent ability to "reject" some of the noise, reducing it's level....which it does not. The noise is the same, but the SNR has increased.M5's point was that in the cases where you have an audible amount of induced noise, the problem is the signal cables or routing near sources of noise in the vehicle (which does not include the amp's power cable), and increasing the voltage of the signal is masking the problem rather than fixing it. I know this, and that's what I said. The final noise is less (at the same volume) from the 4v preouts, and yes, that is because of the higher SNR. I never said anything about some sort of fairy dust that accompanies higher voltage preouts and repels noise. I said that because the signal is amplified more, the noise is amplified more... I guess that assuming my point would be made was too generous of me. And either way, masking the problem is still better than ignoring it altogether. That's not what you said. You've yet to use the phrase SNR until you quoted my post, which if that's what you meant then it would have been a wise choice of words. When we are discussing signal transmission, which is what we are doing when we are discussing preamp voltage levels, minimizing noise would mean reducing the level of noise present in the signal. And I don't recall anyone suggesting we just ignore the problem. Silly thing to say, not even sure where that came from.