New guy here subwoofer question

[EMF Audio]

You're tuning two totally different things. If you have a smart phone and $35 you can read all OBD2 data, and that data doesn't change. Vehicle dynamics change depending on pressure and temperature, and furthermore, you have to do a lot more to get a reading on top of having an RTA to compare and transfer that data. I have an RTA, I'm willing to bet nobody else here does. Do I use an RTA to plug data into software to try to make something sound a certain way? Nope, I build out of my head. You don't get to doing 160+ dB with software simulations, even as an attempt at a starting point.

 

[YukonXL04]

I got to 148 off the top of my head haha

 

[Deephaven]

You're tuning two totally different things. If you have a smart phone and $35 you can read all OBD2 data, and that data doesn't change. Vehicle dynamics change depending on pressure and temperature, and furthermore, you have to do a lot more to get a reading on top of having an RTA to compare and transfer that data. I have an RTA, I'm willing to bet nobody else here does. Do I use an RTA to plug data into software to try to make something sound a certain way? Nope, I build out of my head. You don't get to doing 160+ dB with software simulations, even as an attempt at a starting point.

Yikes, seriously?

I use the same MAF in both my intakes and my airflow measures COMPLETELY differently and my truck wouldn't run for crap if I didn't remap/calibrate the airflow to the output of the sensor. As for the RTA, not sure who you are trying to impress but you aren't the only one on here with one, I'd bet not even close.

 

[EMF Audio]

Yikes, seriously?

I use the same MAF in both my intakes and my airflow measures COMPLETELY differently and my truck wouldn't run for crap if I didn't remap/calibrate the airflow to the output of the sensor. As for the RTA, not sure who you are trying to impress but you aren't the only one on here with one, I'd bet not even close.

Do you own an RTA? Why do I get the feeling you've paid somebody for graphs in the past.

 

[Deephaven]

Do you own an RTA? Why do I get the feeling you've paid somebody for graphs in the past.

Yes, I do. At the same time, I am not sure what that has to do with this thread, if you want to make a point or discussion go for it. Puffing your chest however you can stop.

 

[Ponchonutty]

On a different note I fiberglassed a 10" fosgate shallow sub inside the rear drivers side panel. Still have room to use all 3 rows and a place to store my jack. I made a sealed enclosure and on the smaller side of what was recommended since there's so much airspace in the cabin. Turned out very well considering what challenges were to deal with!

 

[EMF Audio]

Yes, I do. At the same time, I am not sure what that has to do with this thread, if you want to make a point or discussion go for it. Puffing your chest however you can stop.

Well the thread as a whole derailed a long time ago. But in reference to where I was headed with that, since you do have an RTA you can show everybody how you designed a box using simulation software, then took that to your RTA and it shows EXACTLY what the graph does. That's what you've been trying to prove, right? Simulation software is accurate?

Trying to be Alpha male can stop, it's possible that manufacturers know more than enthusiasts. This isn't CACO.

On a different note I fiberglassed a 10" fosgate shallow sub inside the rear drivers side panel. Still have room to use all 3 rows and a place to store my jack. I made a sealed enclosure and on the smaller side of what was recommended since there's so much airspace in the cabin. Turned out very well considering what challenges were to deal with!

I used to do that (area, not exact scenario) a lot in 4Runner's back in early 2000's, people loved it.

 

[Deephaven]

Well the thread as a whole derailed a long time ago. But in reference to where I was headed with that, since you do have an RTA you can show everybody how you designed a box using simulation software, then took that to your RTA and it shows EXACTLY what the graph does. That's what you've been trying to prove, right? Simulation software is accurate?

If by manufacturing you are referring to grabbing some off the shelf parts somewhere in Asia based on what is available and assembling them, then that is a really weird definition. All the real manufacturers of course use T/S and modelling everyday. Exactly how criteria for product development occurs. If you want to go to Harman, Seas, Scan Speak and so on and tell them they are idiots and you know more by seeing a woofer, go ahead. They'll laugh their ass off at you.

Since you have the great idea of showing how modelling doesn't work and own an RTA and a company that sells things perhaps it should be you to prove the rest of the audio world is wrong. This is how the thread derailed as you call it. You told someone to do exactly the opposite of what the educated audio world does. I'd like to see how this arbitrary process of yours works.

 

[EMF Audio]

If by manufacturing you are referring to grabbing some off the shelf parts somewhere in Asia based on what is available and assembling them, then that is a really weird definition. All the real manufacturers of course use T/S and modelling everyday. Exactly how criteria for product development occurs. If you want to go to Harman, Seas, Scan Speak and so on and tell them they are idiots and you know more by seeing a woofer, go ahead. They'll laugh their ass off at you.

Since you have the great idea of showing how modelling doesn't work and own an RTA and a company that sells things perhaps it should be you to prove the rest of the audio world is wrong. This is how the thread derailed as you call it. You told someone to do exactly the opposite of what the educated audio world does. I'd like to see how this arbitrary process of yours works.

You seem to know an aweful lot about my company for knowing nothing about me, or my company. I wasn't aware tooling my own parts was "off the shelf". Well, I guess they were on a shelf at some point. What if I told you I used the same parts as Scan Speak? Would their parts sound better? Who said anything about T/S parameters? You're right, they do use those, so do I. Know what I use them for? Understanding the speaker, not the BS modeling puts out. You're also talking about mids, NOT subs. Mids are a very different ballgame, and holy shit I designed a set of those too. You aren't dealing with cabin changes with mids. Your environment doesn't change with output like with subs. I guess if you never get over 120 dB you might get a vague idea of what's going on.

So you're saying you can't prove me wrong? What the rest of the educated audio world does is do what the manufacturer says, because they know their product best (or should). The rest of the world doesn't build sealed boxes with an alleged 0.707 Qtc, check vehicle response out of the vehicle then in the vehicle at various SPL levels, then graph that data for trends to in turn plug that data into a software simulation to change the box to plot a graph that will make them visually pleased.

I've NEVER had a customer take my box recommendation then come back and go "ya know, it sounds like there is a 1 dB saddle around 47 hz". I'm not sure if you've got rose colored glasses or beer goggles, but you have a very skewed idea of what manufacturers really do behind closed doors. You're making everything out to be way more than it is, which based on how you're acting also tells me there is a very good possibility you either have or do compete in SQ.

 

[Deephaven]

You seem to know an aweful lot about my company for knowing nothing about me, or my company.

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

I wasn't aware tooling my own parts was "off the shelf". Well, I guess they were on a shelf at some point.

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

What if I told you I used the same parts as Scan Speak? Would their parts sound better?

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.

Who said anything about T/S parameters? You're right, they do use those, so do I. Know what I use them for? Understanding the speaker

Like?

not the BS modeling puts out.

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

You're also talking about mids, NOT subs. Mids are a very different ballgame, and holy shit I designed a set of those too. You aren't dealing with cabin changes with mids. Your environment doesn't change with output like with subs.

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

So you're saying you can't prove me wrong? What the rest of the educated audio world does is do what the manufacturer says, because they know their product best (or should). The rest of the world doesn't build sealed boxes with an alleged 0.707 Qtc, check vehicle response out of the vehicle then in the vehicle at various SPL levels, then graph that data for trends to in turn plug that data into a software simulation to change the box to plot a graph that will make them visually pleased.

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

I've NEVER had a customer take my box recommendation then come back and go "ya know, it sounds like there is a 1 dB saddle around 47 hz". I'm not sure if you've got rose colored glasses or beer goggles, but you have a very skewed idea of what manufacturers really do behind closed doors. You're making everything out to be way more than it is, which based on how you're acting also tells me there is a very good possibility you either have or do compete in SQ.

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.

 

[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.