Experienced Numbers

Haha...had me confused for a second there.

 

Who's ever argued that they won't?

I see it this way...

People who advocate using specs understand them for what they are:
Measurements that are taken under a certain standard set of conditions.

They are successful, because they understand those conditions, and they understand the conditions of the application, and they have the ability to apply those specs in a meaninful way, because they understand what shift will occur in response in that applied condition, and whether that shift will result in remaining suitability for the application, or not.

On the other hand...
People who discredit the specs fail to understand them for what they are:
Measurements that are taken under a certain standard set of conditions.
They get frustrated, because they didn't understand the conditions of the application, or the shifts that would occur in response to that applied condition.
They modeled something up anechoically, and when they put that in the car, things looked different. They built kick panels,and their imaging wasn't improved. Something along those lines.

So, they return back to the forums and say:
"Oh, it's not my fault.. it wasn't me.. it's the specs that are wrong."
or
"Theory is meaningless."



Sound about right? :lol: [/b][/quote]
Not exactly sure what your trying to say here...possibly pointing out that I, myself do not know T/S parameters?

I know them...but i look at them - figure out what kind of driver i am looking at. And then never use them again...

You cannot trade hours apon hours of experience for something that a person has read a piece of paper and think that they can do it better .

I dont see many people Arguing with Michael Andretti...saying that since they read 15 volumes of Cart Racing Expirence - that they can beat him, in any race, at any time - simply because they read the book on how to drive a forumla one car.

Experience is something that you can never defeat....no matter how much you read, no matter how hard you study - If you never apply it, you would have been better off not wasting your time on it. :blink:

 

So to simplify things here, lets do this...

(hypothetical of course)

You get into the world's only (well, ok second, Clark's GN is undefeated but retired) undefeated SQ machine, it has won a million competitions, by landslides. YOU are looking for a world class SQ driver. The owner of the car has a horrible accident and loses his memory and ability to reason, so it is impossible for you to get any info from him. Now the owner decides he is going to pull the driver out and give it to you. But after he removes the driver from the car it (the car) gets stolen!!! You have no idea what the driver is, what the specs are or anything. No base to work with for the enclosure. This is a 1 of a kind driver and he hands it to you....

What are you gonna do with it?

You've heard it, but you have no information about the driver aside from hearing it. How are you going to apply this driver in your application? Are you sure it will fit in your application? Where are you going to start? Tell me, what kind of power are you going to put to the unit?

Since the #s mean nothing, these should all be very easy questions to answer correct?

I'll even give you a DMM so you can do everything you need with the driver (bit-o-humor, the DMM seems to be the answer to everything ).

While there is no doubt that the parameters are not everything, the reasons of "real world experiance are all important" is simple crap. We do need the numbers, and we use them (as even those guys calling them uniportant are saying) as a starting point for designing the system. The arguement of "experiance is everything, paper is nothing" is totally bogus as well.

My experiance dictates that with the numbers I can choose a driver to suit my application and I can basically tell how THE DRIVER will react to the true signal. My experiance dictates I can read the reports and come up with a design that will be flattering to the driver. My experiance dictates that I can manipulate the driver to work well in the vehicle in question. My experiance also dictates that without those "worthless" numbers I am likely to run into serious issues trying to accomplish anything I mentioned above.

It really seems to me we are all arguing and yet winding up with the same conclusions... The #s are important, it is simply how we apply the #s in the real world that determines the end result of the product.

 

I'm not saying anything about you personally - your words illustrate your failure to get my point:

I'm making an observation about the potential causes for "why people would try to discredit T/S specs".
In application, it doesn't boil down to "the T/S specs are wrong" (or substitute Klippel or DUMAX for T/S.. it's the concept as a whole )

They are just measurements.
Those who fail to realize them for that are all flawed, essentially -
It doesn't matter if you are a "supporter" or a "critic"...

What you are failing to realize is that there really are three conceptual parties - and they always end up bubbling up as concepts in these arguments:
1) "spec enthusiasts", who often have more of a grasp on "rules of thumb" and generalizatons, than true understanding - and often overshoot the scope of specs in attempting modelling, failing to consider something in their modeling.
2) "spec realists", who have a grasp on the scope of the measurements, who are aware of environmental issues, and how the puzzle is assembled - the combination of the discrete speaker measurements and acoustics. "Critics" often overemphasize the means of learning these elements.
3) "critics" who must either fail to understand either the scope of the specs (which would result in criticizing them, based on their lack of successful experiences)... or they fail to understand the acoustical and environmental issues (which would result in criticizing attempting modelling based on specs, based on their lack of successful experiences).

But yet, the argument is always simply "black and white" by the critics:
Either you must be someone who "uses specs for modelling" (and must be therefore seriously misguided), or you are someone who "discredits specs and operates by experience only" (and must be therefore supremely enlightened).

I criticize the debate, not the debator.

So it's that black and white to you, is it?

And what makes you think that anyone else uses those specs for anything else?
Once it's built, you have a finished product.
I can't even conceive what you are alluding to...
Might i paint them on the side of my enclosure? :lol:

However, ponder this:
Learning! (don't jump)

Let's say you do build something, and for some reason, it doesn't meet your expectations.

Someone who believes that their own personal procedures must naturally be flawless would look at their end result and say "Oh, the specs must be meaningless... look, my end result didn't end up like I predicted."

Someone who is more interested in learning, would instead look at that result and say "Look at that, the end result didn't end up being what I predicted, I must have failed to take something into account, or I must have misunderstood the meaning of something that I used."

The former leads to an inflated ego in one's inherently limited "experiences".
The latter leads to the pursuit of knowledge.

In the end, it's not really about whether "specs are good" or "specs are bad"...
It's about your attitude and your ability to learn.

 

"If you can't explain what you have experienced..."
"Then what have you learned?"

In brief, this is what measurements (and the specs that result) represent.

 

it is for somebody without the first clue of what a TS param is...[/b][/quote]
Hold up...

This is no criticism against "using specs".
This is a criticism of the results that someone of lesser education might yield. Criticizing someone elses results? Don't you have results of your own to be concerned with! :lol:

Someone who doesn't know what they are doing might yield incorrect results - so no one should use specs?
Come on, you've got more rational-thought ability than that.

And even in the scope of "someone who doesn't know what they are doing"...
How would you suggest that they learn?

There's a lot of hypocracy in this thread:
Those arguing against using specs repeatedly say that they use them themselves...
Those arguing agaisnt using specs repeatedly say that they truly do understand the specs...
The implication is that they have used the specs, and have observed the results themselves with the experiences of their results... which has led to an understanding of the specs. Fair enough?

Now..
How would you have described yourself before you had these experiences?

What if, at that point, you hadn't ever looked at specs of any type?

The claim is that experiences taught you the meaning of the specs...
But you took the specs out of the equation, then all you would have would be experiences, and still no understanding of the specs.

So your claims of understanding the specs show that you either have:
1) Used the specs, and used experience to learn the results.
2) Not used the specs for your experience, and instead have purely book-read learned the definition of the specs at some point along the way.

The former would simply be hypocritical.
The latter would amusingly be in the spirit of your arguments, while being doubly hypocritical of the sort of person who only reads about specs.

So I submit this question to those arguing against:
How would you expect someone to obtain experience-based knowledge on the application of specs (successful predictive modeling), in the context of your arguments that a person shouldn't use specs to perform predictive modeling?

Yes, that does look like a catch-22, and hence my comments about hypocrasy. :detective:

 

Geo, I don't think people are saying that specs are TOTALLY irrelevant. I think people sometimes rely SOLEY on specs and base their opinions or arguments on them. Other people do the exact opposite.

At my old job, we had engineers who laid everything out on paper and computer. When everything was correct, they would send the prints to us. Now, take those prints and apply them to whatever we're working on and they don't always fit the application. Now, the engineers will get upset because it worked on paper so well, but did not work 100% in reality. Then, the guys on the floor get upset because they have to rework something that was supposed to be 100%. So who's wrong? NOBODY. Without the engineers, the people on the floor wouldn't know where to start.

In essence, we can't base everything on the numbers. They provide the necessary base and give guidance on how to improve in the application. I know this has already been stated and argued, but what I got from this thread in the beginning posts was that people were looking soley at the numbers to predict whether one driver was better than another, when in fact we have to look at the whole picture.

 

Bless you child for saying this - at least somebody is actually reading what we have been typing lol. I think you a thousand times for using your head!

 

That's what I'm talking about, "black vs. white".

It's not that simple, but that's what the argument is, that's being made!
That's MY point!

True or false:
They are advocating that based on measurements of a speaker, you can't reach conclusions about what those measurements represent.

Fundamentally, that is ludicrous and ignorant.

It is the same thing as saying "I know you measured yourself and it said 5'11", but that doesn't mean that I can make any determination as to what your height is."

Specs are discrete measurements.
They represent what was measured.
As such, determinations can be made from those numbers... it's inherent.

Likewise, if you know more things (specs, shall we call them?) about the driver, you can reach more determinations about it, it's limitations, it's capabilities.

And, if you know more things (are these specs too?) about your application, your listening environment, etc.. you can make more suitability determinations about that as well.

The issue is that an argument is being made, that you cannot make these conclusions.

The argument is being made that the specs aren't worth anything...

The argument is being made that by hearing the driver in person, in a particular application, on a particular set of equipment, in a particular acoustical environment, better determinations can be made about application than can be made using a spec sheet.

So yes - in essence they are saying exactly that.
If a new woofer came out on the market, the argument being made is that no determinations could be made about it's suitability for a particular application without the magical enlightenment that occurs when you actually hear it in some essentially random application.
Or worse... that no one should make any determination until they've heard that woofer in the exact application that it's being considered for... (and does that encompass the exact signal chain, wiring, charge system, acoustical environment, box construction quality, etc as well??)

It's a ludicrous thought, honestly...
If a woofer simply isn't suited for an application... what's your likelihood of finding one to audition in that application?
If it is suited for an application, and you find one to audition, does that allow you to reach a generalization about one particular element of that signal chain that you heard?
That's the issue.

 

Bless you child for saying this - at least somebody is actually reading what we have been typing lol. I think you a thousand times for using your head! [/b][/quote]
You'll have to pardon my exaggeration to attempt to get you to realize look at yourself and what's being communicated...
I'm sorry you didn't pick up on that...

 

You'll have to pardon my exaggeration to attempt to get you to realize look at yourself and what's being communicated...
I'm sorry you didn't pick up on that... [/b][/quote]
..kind of confused...your mindless babble has yet lost my attention again...could you type some more please?

I've built sq cars....i've helped build world chapion spl cars...what 'world champion' or 'world title' cars/trucks/vans/installs do you have under your belt? :lmfao:

BTW - The name is pronounced Dumas :boxing:

 

So what? :blink:

If you are so in need of acceptance that you need someone else to pat you on the back, that is perfectly cool. Unfortunately, not very many of us here really care.

Also, unlike yourself Chris puts alot of thought, intelligence, and maturity into his posts. If there is too much information for you to grasp his concepts maybe I can simplify it for you...

We have all been saying the exact same thing Tirefyre said all along. Unfortunately, you decided to make it a pissing match, yet agree with everything that was said because someone else said it.

Why do you find it so imperative to argue? Since you are so all knowing, and we are so below your level, why do you bother? I mean really, if I knew everything I wouldn't come here. It appears obvious to me that you will never learn anything, since you have broken all the laws and disproved all the theories. Now, why don't you go somewhere and break some more laws and disprove some more theories, because frankly I'm not interested in any of your uninformed (or shall I quote "mindless") babble.

 

So what? :blink:

If you are so in need of acceptance that you need someone else to pat you on the back, that is perfectly cool. Unfortunately, not very many of us here really care.

Also, unlike yourself Chris puts alot of thought, intelligence, and maturity into his posts. If there is too much information for you to grasp his concepts maybe I can simplify it for you...

We have all been saying the exact same thing Tirefyre said all along. Unfortunately, you decided to make it a pissing match, yet agree with everything that was said because someone else said it.

Why do you find it so imperative to argue? Since you are so all knowing, and we are so below your level, why do you bother? I mean really, if I knew everything I wouldn't come here. It appears obvious to me that you will never learn anything, since you have broken all the laws and disproved all the theories. Now, why don't you go somewhere and break some more laws and disprove some more theories, because frankly I'm not interested in any of your uninformed (or shall I quote "mindless") babble. [/b][/quote]
I'm not the one that is in need for a pat on the back - read the origional post and sit down sir. You are a classic jackass in and of yourself, that is all that needs to be said.

Geolemon types.....and types..and types...and types some more...proving nothing but what has already been proven time and time again, earlier on in this thread.

My 'Mindless' babble and my 'immaturity' has designed more drivers then you have ever heard. Along with many cars,boats,suv's, truck's - you name it i've done it...including doing the install itself. I have forgotten about more drivers then you have ever seen, and more then likely know, more of the manufactures in this business then you will ever know. They know i am not your average idiot, they know a side of me that nobody see's on a forum...and quite frankly - this forum isnt worth the sweat off of my dog's tongue.

But according to the 3 other posters on this tread i'm an immature idiot that does not know his ass from a whole in the ground. The world championchip trophy's that the owners have of those cars, that i have either built, designed or helped build (you know who you are) tend to disagree with these posters and contradict what they are saying, along with the Reality SPL State level championchips (2 years in the row) i have in my daily driver....

With that being said - I bid you gentleman good day - This will be my last post on this forum. :ban: away

 

Delusions of grandeur aren't becoming of you.
Credentials are integrity, never forget.

The best part about this forum is that it brings together people and allows them to communicate on the same level... Conceited people simply aren't going to find the ego-stroking that they crave... we're simply about education and sharing knowledge, sharing learning.
It's not black magic, and you aren't the sorcerer. :lol:

If that's what you are after, you won't find it here.

It's an interesting outburst that you had...
This teaches us something about your personality - and in the context of this thread, the very reason for your inability to see the forest from the trees, the inability to distinguish the symptom from the cure.

You must have missed somewhere that many of the active members on this forum are actually industry-involved - many on the retail end of things, many on the manufacturing side of the fence, some in consulting, and yes, even a few sponsored competitors (some sponsored by our companies)...
Those here who are industry-involved have around 10-15 years of history behind us in the business in some capacity - and often that spans many roles over time.

How does that stack up against your mystery-credentials?
Apparantly, in your eyes, "competition is the answer".

Which explains why all industry figures - or anyone worth their salt - have world-championship competition vehicles?
Perhaps everyone else should stay off the forums altogether?
But then.. who would you have left to talk to? :lol:

Again, flawed logic... it really is that fundamental.

This [rather immature :baby:] emotional outburst of yours really is frustration incarnate - obviously triggered by your own fundamental failed attempts at materializing any successful argument, in this concept you thought made sense to you.
Believe me, I thank you for that. B)

It's not surprising, this outburst...
You do see this smug attitude of "I have heard this sub, therefore all you who have not should step aside!" quite a bit in people with similar demeanor.
Just another muffin out of the same tin.

 

Hold up...

This is no criticism against "using specs".
This is a criticism of the results that someone of lesser education might yield. Criticizing someone elses results? Don't you have results of your own to be concerned with! :lol:

Someone who doesn't know what they are doing might yield incorrect results - so no one should use specs?
Come on, you've got more rational-thought ability than that.

And even in the scope of "someone who doesn't know what they are doing"...
How would you suggest that they learn?

[/b][/quote]
I never said don't use them....you are putting words into my mouth....
I said don't count them as the dead sea scrolls...

I suggest you learn by getting off your ass and putting the woofer into practice after you've gotten the vague idea of the driver's potential ...

Now...you've started putting words into my mouth...and i'm not really into that kind of debate...Every time i type to you...i'm not going to sit here and unknot what youve twisted my words to be.
i'm finding you to be rather incohearant or something...you basically are not listening to what i'm saying or the explainations that i've given you are not sinkin in.

SO !....

As i thought you did too...

:lol: this place is nutz....... LOYD....... wait a sec LOL...

 

damn...some of you boys are long winded! :lmfao:

the funny thing here is that the harder everyone argues, the more set in their ways they become. so...WHO WINS THIS ARGUMENT? yeah yeah, i know some of you can lay yang on forehead...thats not the point.

...let the fighting continue. this is a great spectator sport :ss:

eric

 

I never said don't use them....you are putting words into my mouth....
I said don't count them as the dead sea scrolls...[/b][/quote]

No, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth...
I just am saying...
I don't think that it's valid to argue that people shouldn't use specs, because some people might misinterpret them.
And I know that's not exactly what you were saying, I didn't mean to make that impression...

I get off my ass and build plenty... and I document quite a bit of those projects, and put them on the web, if there's anything interesting about them, or in fact - why I chose that particular design, for a particular woofer... like that quad-isobaric bandpass with those four eights...

No, we are just arguing the same thing, I think. :lol:
Sorry if that came off too harsh, I didn't exactly word that nicely...

No one here has been a bigger advocate of "the middle ground" than me... (and that's usually my stance, on controversial issues... if you care to make a prediction of where I'll be for the next one! )

I've been saying, these specs can be a very valuable and powerful tool, if used as they are intended, as they are applicable.

You are essentially saying the same thing, I believe...

I'm simply opposing the arguement that comes in here and tries to boldly state:
"You don't know anything, until you actually hear the subwoofer in some application... only then can you make judgements about what it's good for."

 

Most of my differences of opinion lie in semantics, I think. At it's base, I agree with the specs tell us what we need to know...I just don't think they tell us everything to know. I still can't get anyone to answer the threshhold question from above...at which point do certain specs simply not matter anymore...where decreased distortion due to suspension and (motor) excursion properties cease to be noticed...audibly.

Example: If 2 drivers of equal size are equal in distortion up to 20 mm xmax, but one driver is clean up to 30 mm, while the other starts to show distortion at 20.1 mm. If we listen to music at "normal" levels, we aren't likely to hit 20.1 mm xmax...and if we listen to music at the point where the other driver hits 30mm xmax, are we really going to hear it at that spl level anyway?



NDmstang...you probably do know a lot about subs, more than me in fact...but not everything like you are coming accross as. Hey, you thought the 15A was (basket) limited to 24 mm of xmax...while Lloyd (who knows a thing or two about subs) confirmed that the basket allows for an easy 32 mm. But hey, that was only a week ago...

 

I do not claim to know everything...damn i had to post again.

The 10 and 12 a will indeed slap the spider arrangement (cracked cones in these models)

And you'll never get that much reward clearance (what is the rearword '30'mm?) out of a 15a without the bending formers, broken T joints, Shattered cones, and Broken coils - because the coil slap's the back plate None the less the drivers are flawed and there is no simple fix to it (ie aluminum on the back of the cone) which is probably why they are switching cones....because i know of a number of places that you can have those cones in say 3 weeks?

This is fishy...everything that i have just listed happens to be happening to the drivers....veird :ss:

i'm out dis bish