New guy here subwoofer question

[EMF Audio]

Funny, there is this thing called the internet. Glad you approve of what I know.

Internet doesn't tell you everything like you'd hope it would.

You can surely correct me and tell us how you designed them, but obviously we both know the outcome of that.

Yup, you'll make some snippy comment on how you're better than everybody else, try to discount everything I say, and call it a victory.

If you need someone to tell you it is the sum of the parts and not the parts you have more to learn than I thought.

You seem to think nothing can be an "off the shelf" part and be good. So you completely negated your prior comment inferring that everything I do is "off the shelf" and isn't good.

Okay, confirmed a ton to learn. Why don't you tell us how things are designed if they aren't modelled first?

Real manufacturers take t/s parameters and have a pretty good idea how it's going to ask, build a box, and test it. From there you can make adjustments. There are general guidelines to start from. That comes from experience, not theory.

I wasn't talking about mids. Your statements about them are way off. Google standing waves.

My statements are spot on. All the companies you listed aren't known for having good subs (and make a very limited amount of them), they are known for good mids. Feel free to go on an SQ ***** tirade. What does standing waves have to do with t/s parameters? Standing waves has everything to do with the installation. I'm very familiar with standing waves, some of us are recognized in the audio community as accomplished. I have the championship titles to back it up.

Sounds like you just did with your own statement. Do you think before you type? Obviously nothing wrong with the modelling software.

Sounds like you didn't comprehend anything I said. I explained very specifically what's wrong with modelling software, more than once. You suggested it's completely accurate if you use the method I described, in detail. Furthermore I've never known anybody to actually do that. The resolution to eliminate majority of those steps is to just use an EQ.

Your customers aren't discerning, we get it, but then if they were we both know they wouldn't have bought woofers designed as you are implying you do. As for knowing what manufacturers do, I guarantee I've been in more speaker R&D centers than you have. Probably more this year than you ever have...but my idea is skewed perhaps instead of just going to build houses you should interact with some engineers, it would be enlightening for you.

My customers are the average customer, with the exception of the hardcore SPL competitors. I'm glad you feel the need to insult virtually every member of this forum. What I've designed are proven performers, which is why they buy it. Are they supposed to be the best sounding speakers on the planet because somebody told you they are? No, that's not what they were designed to do. My stuff is designed to operate over 130 dB, some into the 170+ dB area.

You're making a lot of gaurentees for literally knowing nothing about me, where I go, or what I do. I'm not the kid that calls up a build house and points at a catalog like you're assuming. You've "been in R&D centers", I've started them. I do talk to fellow engineers, the ones I've been friends with for 10+ years.

I'm not sure why your butt hurts so much over modeling, but feel free to come off your high horse any time and start proving what you're saying rather than trying to insult me. And while you're at it, go ahead and tell me the best box for this sub, since modeling is accurate.

 

[Deephaven]

Let’s get this back on topic. At the end of your post, you created a good scenario to do this. Just to refresh how this blew off topic, these are the two posts that started our interaction:

Model what you had and then start playing with comparisons. You won't be modelling cabin gain, nor the effects of box position, but it will show you what changing gear will do. Blindly building boxes without understanding what the model will show you is crazy and ineffective.

It won't show you anything accurate, which is the point of it. What it would model would be as close as me drawing on paper saying "it will look like this". I literally have a better idea of how something is going to sound by taking a sub and building a box out of my head than what would model.

The model is based off of t/s parameters, which are measured at a fraction of a millimeter of excursion. You get it moving, everything changes.

You offered a biased test with one of your drivers. I’d propose, we put this on a level playing field and instead of using one of your drivers, we should make this fit the statement you made. Let’s grab some frankenwoofer that neither of us has any background with and each do the exact thing you describe. To make this fair since neither of us have exactly the same vehicle or power, let’s assume it is for a free field environment and test it outside. Goal is to design/build 2 boxes. One for an optimally flat response the other for the peakiest response (ie highest spl at any frequency). You get to look at the sub and build a box out of your head, I get to break the driver in, measure the T/S and model a box (which is what any manufacturer should do before posting them). We each get one shot at each box.

Do you still think you will be closer to the optimal designs defined? If no, there is no reason to move forward with the discussion. If yes, we would all like to hear why.