///M5

how's the little guy?

With a design goal of light, again the RWD would win...and does. It is way simpler to make drive axles that don't have to turn. The top cars in this list are ridiculously light. Top Gear Track lap records - FastestLaps.com Go ahead and show us your FWD performance vehicle in that list and how they all rank on the top as they handle better. I will also guarantee that you put snow tires on any of the cars in that list and run them on sheer ice and they will handle unbelievably well. Much better than any FWD car with snow tires. j/w sean how is the H1 on top of the list?

I'm pretty set on the ScanSpeak HDS. For the mid I was thinking of the ER18 that you had mentioned. I have a concern, that may actually not be a concern at all, about this. While looking at the frequency response graph I noticed that there is a drop off down low. Higher than I think I would like? Maybe not? ...help me... I'll be running a sealed Dcon for the subbass department. The Peerless HDS is a hell of a tweeter, makes more sense to be sold under the Scan-speak label IMO anyways. That tweeter is capable of playing low enough that the more capable midrange of the ER may not be "necessary". The driver definitely rolls off faster than the CA, but it is much sweeter in the midrange which is a reasonable trade-off depending on your listening preferences. If you really want low, these might work. DIYCable.com : Intro » Home » Exodus Subwoofers » I only say might as I have no experience with them. I know their low end will definitely be sweet, but they are rather heavy for a door and I have no idea what the upper response looks like. Brad has a few of them in his closet though so perhaps he'll chime in.

And either way there is NO acoustical difference between the two power outputs at any voltage. ie, one will NOT sound louder than the other. Not at all the reason to decide on either amplifier. Perhaps if you shared something about your system and goals we could state which would work better for you, but based on power you won't hear a difference at all.

My misunderstanding was you not sharing details, I am definitely familiar with overall Q and exactly why I asked. It sounded to me like you read a description and used that as your issue instead of sharing what was wrong with your system. I wanted clarification, otherwise you could be chasing a pipe dream that isn't yours. As for the bass you are looking for and why it was confusing, I roll my subs off by 50Hz, anything above to me is for the front stage. Not so unusual and therefore pretty hard to guess it was the midbass frequencies that you wanted your sub to play better, although you can see that was already offered as an option as well. If you don't mind how your subs sound now in the lower frequencies, I would still say that is definitely the answer. Beef up the fronts, lower your crossover and then decide if you need more below where your fronts can't play.

By definition a Bandpass won't let you play things high. It only passes a small band of frequencies. You will most definitely need midbass etc. Asking about boom and CVR beating screams BL, not Q.

If the plastic is flapping some CLD, if it is rubbing some CCF. I too would call Don at SDS. Link in my sig.

I don't have sigs on, wasn't sure on the budget from your response, and am trying to figure out what portion of the rock or hip hop you listen to your current subs don't produce. Your boomy/muddy comments are a bit backwards from what we be expected via too small of an enclosure which makes it harder. I know what I wouldn't like about what you have but am not sure in your case. I see the comment that everything you listen to sounds like shit, but don't know what you mean. Also curious as to how you set your filters and gains on the Sundown you have.

No pictures of the SHO at least that were worth a shit, however from the outside it was bone stock except the Eibach drop and hood scoops out of a Turbo Coupe. White on white. Sleeper from hell.

I remember you talking to someone else a couple months ago about the Sweet SHO you had. Do you have any pictures? I haven't had any bad experiences with rear wheel drives. I Own 3 right now, But I have always liked the way my Honda's handle. No I have never driven a BM'er, But I use to Shag Audi's and they where fun to drive plus I owned one of the old 5 clylinder Quattro's. My funnest car I ever owned was a 76' Firebird that was restored top to bottom, VERY FUN!!!!! Right now my Baby is my 72' Chevy Blazer with a 327 under the hood.I will post pictures in a couple days. I've driven some rendition of every car made and never been anything but scared in a Honda in the winter. Not fair to compare to a 72 Blazer or 76 Firebird btw, no wonder you are soured.

Yummy, which large format?

Crap I forgot your sarcasm detector doesn't work very well. By "slightly" I mean somewhere just around 2x stock power.

And yes I've had plenty of experience with both including in the Mountains. I used to drive SHO's including one that was "slightly" hopped up.

Wrong on both accounts. FWD cars are LESS efficient than RWD cars. The damn CV joints insure that. And it had NOTHING to do with traction in the snow. Why are you trying to compare a FWD to a Performace car? Not the intended use. FWD car will not lose traction in snow as easy as a RWD car WAS the debate. I can do donuts ALL day long in a RWD car and will be bouncing off the curbs trying to drive in a staight line, on the other hand a FWD car is hard to get to lose traction. True? I wasn't you were. You specifically stated that FWD handled better. RWD does not make you slide sideways so no I won't agree. RWD may spin, but won't slide. When FWD spins it slides for sure and is impossible to keep in a straight line. Any sort of trouble too and you are completely effed in a FWD car. Amusing that you are debating about acceleration anyways as anyone who drives in inclement weather should know that turning and stopping are what is important and where you get into trouble. If you get into trouble accelerating in a RWD car it is 100% operator error, you can't say the same with a FWD car as they are not predictable although again it is still mostly operator error. I see no traction benefit to a FWD car. I think the problem here is you are comparing your RWD experience with a really shitty car or one with a terrible weight balance. Then indeed a shitty car of either variety will suck.

Listen to your tweeters alone, pick an aiming, then change your phase and adjust again and see if it gets better. Get ready to A/B yourself to death for the next week And that dash is a bitch. Don't expect it to do anything nice. Get a huge dashpad and even then, not so sure that the pillars are the best in the Silverado. Everything is a compromise though, so you can pick yours

Not sure how you couldn't be. Design a box once and look at how changing volumes & porting will change everything. Then realize that you have no idea of the cabin gain or acoustics of your vehicle with a box like that in it. It isn't impossible, but as stated you will have to build one to find out how close you were to your target design and at least one more to nail it in. You *could* do a ton of measurements and calculate everything, but that would require more time & money than just building a different box. It just isn't a trivial design when you don't have all the parameters associated with it. If you are into compromises then you could just say screw it, but I wouldn't.

Total budget, amplifier, and total space would all help. Saying "not a problem" isn't help.

Reviews like this are what promote people to buy the Q that really should be buying the BL. For those that are reading if output is something you desire, I am sure you will be impressed with the SQ of the BL as well.

I have dementia as well after reading your question. All in one box is fine. Follow Fi's specs and you are golden.

Should be no higher than your ears and even that sounds a bit unnatural to me.

TOp

Just a hint, it is a long way down the list before a front driver makes it. I would consider that pretty unbiased testing as well, although obviously adjustments for weather should be included and aren't the general list is at least ranked within a few cars appropriately. Amusingly there aren't that many AWD cars either.

With a design goal of light, again the RWD would win...and does. It is way simpler to make drive axles that don't have to turn. The top cars in this list are ridiculously light. Top Gear Track lap records - FastestLaps.com Go ahead and show us your FWD performance vehicle in that list and how they all rank on the top as they handle better. I will also guarantee that you put snow tires on any of the cars in that list and run them on sheer ice and they will handle unbelievably well. Much better than any FWD car with snow tires.

Wrong on both accounts. FWD cars are LESS efficient than RWD cars. The damn CV joints insure that. And it had NOTHING to do with traction in the snow.

A history lesson for you, People learned about weight to power ratio is the reason cars are built without a frame. There are AWD and RWD cars that DON"T have a FRAME. Do I need to name a few? there are a ton of different racing classes, ALOT of race cars have the engine in the back over the drive tires, Others use a spoiler for down force. They also design the front of race cars to have ALOT of down force. I agree that an AWD car will handle best. LOL. Really, I understand there are options without frames, but the reason that FWD exists is cost. 100% as there is no performance advantage. I also realize that there are rear and mid engine cars, but that is irrelevant as we are discussing average passenger cars and I don't think anyone considers a 911 an average passenger car. If you want to argue otherwise, what is the advantage exactly of FWD?