Alan Palmer

together? couldnt resist. sorry.

its been proved sir. the results speak for themselves. regardless of whatever math, science, or magic dust that was used in graphing this build, it is not "peaky", etc. it performs extremely well given the entry level gear, and does so across the frequency spectrum. that is the only fact relevant to this situation. i personally havent seen m5 answer any question he was asked either.. simply asking questions and acting offended at any directed towards him.

I sincerely hope that wasn't the article you were referring to that "proves" sealed enclosures are "the best". Really though, it's 12:30 and I have to go to bed or I would get more depth. nothing "proves" anything. however, logically, that would be correct. i have to be up in a couple of hours myself. nbd though, just putting in 70-80 hours weeks here. im pretty much done with this though to be honest.. nothing productive is coming out of it. m5 is obviously going to tuck tail and run from any questions with merit, and nothing else is really staying on topic.. so eh. robin and dylan hit the nail on the head with this one, as they have with pretty much every other design/build they've done, and i believe they will continue to do so. math or no math, they do it right, and in the end, thats what matters.

I don't know what article you read, but the simple explanation is that you misinterpreted the information and/or didn't understand it. My prior comment on sealed enclosures is indisputably accurate. Much of your statements are easily demonstrated as incorrect. It's easy to demonstrate that a ported enclosure can have a higher peak output than sealed in "a perfect world", there are dozens of situations and circumstances where a ported enclosure is a better suited option than sealed, and there are multiple advantages to ported enclosures over sealed enclosures. On the flip side, there are also examples where a sealed enclosure is a better suited option and multiple advantages to sealed enclosures. Neither is "the best" in all possible regards and all possible situations and circumstances. To state sealed is simply "the best" is nothing but an ill informed statement. It simply demonstrates a lack of understanding of the applicable theories. Which is part of the reason I responded to the sealed enclosure comment to begin with. As I stated in the last thread, it seems as though most of the "anti-theory" crowd simply doesn't fundamentally understand the theory to begin with, which is one of the main sources of conflict. Your statements simply further demonstrate that point. Google "Argument from Authority" and why it's logically flawed. i refer you to this post again, heres the article m5. If you know something about physics, you may think you have it figured out. You would know that rapidly compressing and rarifying the air can change the pressure within an airtight environment, in this case the cab of the vehicle. And if you were so inclined, you would likely apply this knowledge in SPL competitions by searching for the "golden subwoofer" with high power handling potential and the longest excursion (so that as much air as possible could be moved). Once you found the "golden subwoofer" you would measure the vehicle to see just how many of these puppies you could stuff into the interior. And, since you want to compress and rarify the air, it would make sense to have a sealed chamber, where the front and rear wave of the speaker could not interact. All the while you would want to minimize the volume of the chamber (cab of the vehicle) so there would be less air to move. In the end, you wind up with a sealed enclosure. Stepping into the SPL lanes will cause most physicists to become confused. Immediately, they'll ask, "Where are all of the sealed enclosures?" You see, the majority of warped and extreme competitors taking top honors in SPL competitions today use ported enclosures, not sealed. Why? I think it is safe to say that many of these competitors don't actually know themselves, they just learn from trial and error. Cut and try. So where does the answer to high SPL lie? The physicist is actually correct in theory to recommend a sealed enclosure. However, there is one small problem: subwoofers. Current subwoofer designs cannot move enough air due to excursion limitations. On the other hand, ported enclosures are slightly less dependent on excursion. link- http://caraudiomag.c...x-basics-part-2 and i will read up on the argument from authority now

and just to explain what a load of garbage your post was m5, what you have attempted to explain this whole time was proven wrong. you might think the math and science you've done was what happened, but somewhere along the line, your math, and what actually happened ended up being completely different. you were asked a simple question. tell us why you are an authority. aka, what gives you the right to tell us what can and can not happen. i can see you have 46 thousand posts on this forum. that means absolutely nothing as far as car audio knowledge goes. you brought a graph, and a rudimentary knowledge of physics to the table. nothing thus far has been credited towards you in the form of experience with boxes, spl, designs, cars, etc. all you have to your name is 25 thousands posts in off topic, and a fancy graph telling me something that isnt true. when you can come up with a better option for maliboom, then we can continue this discussion. until then, your word means nothing, because there is nothing substantial behind it. i will continue to believe those whom have proven themselves over you, until you prove yourself to be better than them, which... thus far, you have not.

Crap I was wrong. Pretty simple here guys, I should have figured it out earlier though. If you have an interest in discussing the enclosure fine, if not then I'll step up and just not respond. I made one very simple point and that was there are better ways to meet Malibu's goals. From that point on you all emotionally went nuts and just want to attack everything I type for any reason, but never address the point at hand. I am sorry I fell into that trap and responded which of course fueled this further. At this point I am done fueling the fire, but still more than glad to discuss the enclosure. If you want to keep skirting it you can do it without expecting a response from me. aka you give up because the only facts relevant to this discussion prove you wrong. touche good sir. didnt see that coming. i'll mark the win up and see you again later.

and at this point, credibility is all that matters. you continue to say science and math, but neither of those are changing the results... the results have real life, 100%, factual proved you wrong. if you have followed all applications of math and science perfectly (which i know you havent, because there is more to this scenario than you have access to), then yes, it has in fact proven math and science wrong. outside of that... i dont think i have much else to say here.

heres the article m5. If you know something about physics, you may think you have it figured out. You would know that rapidly compressing and rarifying the air can change the pressure within an airtight environment, in this case the cab of the vehicle. And if you were so inclined, you would likely apply this knowledge in SPL competitions by searching for the "golden subwoofer" with high power handling potential and the longest excursion (so that as much air as possible could be moved). Once you found the "golden subwoofer" you would measure the vehicle to see just how many of these puppies you could stuff into the interior. And, since you want to compress and rarify the air, it would make sense to have a sealed chamber, where the front and rear wave of the speaker could not interact. All the while you would want to minimize the volume of the chamber (cab of the vehicle) so there would be less air to move. In the end, you wind up with a sealed enclosure. Stepping into the SPL lanes will cause most physicists to become confused. Immediately, they'll ask, "Where are all of the sealed enclosures?" You see, the majority of warped and extreme competitors taking top honors in SPL competitions today use ported enclosures, not sealed. Why? I think it is safe to say that many of these competitors don't actually know themselves, they just learn from trial and error. Cut and try. So where does the answer to high SPL lie? The physicist is actually correct in theory to recommend a sealed enclosure. However, there is one small problem: subwoofers. Current subwoofer designs cannot move enough air due to excursion limitations. On the other hand, ported enclosures are slightly less dependent on excursion. link- http://caraudiomag.com/articles/box-basics-part-2

first things first, on the topic of sealed boxes, physics state that a sealed box will have the best performance, as the back waves will not interfer with the forward waves at all. excursion leading to air agitation is what creates sound. in a perfect world, a sealed box would in fact be the loudest. i can find the article written by a physicist with years of research, or you can form your interpretation based of my crude description. either way, you were somewhat incorrect. physics does in fact state sealed boxes would model best. It does not defy Physics not even close. Guess how GM designed that car? That's right, by modeling it in the virtual world. They then verified their model using modal analysis and transfer path analysis to determine if the acoustic model that they had created was satisfactory and did what they had designed it to. This includes the full acoustic response of not only the stereo but the car interacting with the world as well. Obviously with any model some assumptions are made, but the trick is to manage the variables such that the outcome is appropriate. If it didn't defy Physics for GM then I am pretty sure it didn't for the box design in question. How would that add credibility? Are you implying you'll believe some idiot who spouts incorrect BS because he has a history that includes winning something? How about the opposite, what if I said I've never installed a car stereo but I did all the model verification for GM on their car. Obviously you are a bit short cited in your whole thought on this process if you truly think it has to be limited to car audio, or to even think that is what is necessary to be relevant. Either way, credibility on the internet should never come from citing your experiences but instead expressing them and backing them up with logic and thought which is exactly why I thought Big Boi made this thread as someone wanted to share that. I find it disgusting when people want to live on their reputation but don't actually bring any game to the table, hopefully that isn't happening here or being implied that it is a good thing. As for your point, it is a good one though as so far the credibility of the ultra-defensive Malibu'ers happens to be completely subjective. Subjective & emotional responses do not paint a pretty picture. To get this back on topic and answer what you should have been asking, there are some rather simple things here to understand: Box design, which isn't particularly hard and the understanding of transfer functions which is more difficult, but just rudimentary Physics and not rocket science. If you think there is some magic voodoo or something else as well, then lets hear it. to be honest, a reputation is something to bring to the table. if you have proven that your method works, then you have something entirely credible. its like a pitcher that throws a backwards curveball. its against the norm, but if he throws a couple of perfect games, does he not have something to bring to the table since its not the norm? logically, you can't refute something being loud if they hold the world title, correct? logically, if a car with 4 15"s can do a 155+ from 26hrtz-56 hrtz, its one helluva car, and was an extremely successful design and build. now i can quote physics, math, grammar, etc alllllll day. that does not make me an expert. most of the programs available to graph responses using the ts parameters do not do that great of a job to be honest. i've built tons of boxes that graph amazingly, and then turn out to sound like crap and not get loud at all... my current wall graphs pretty terribly, but judging by my windsheild, and all the people that have covered their ears when the bass hits, its not half bad. i just dont see how you could trust a computer program over someone that has proven themselves in the industry. i mean.. if larry frederick tells you something works, are you going to tell him its impossible? robin is to the spl world what larry is to the sq world. when it comes down to it, i believe you when you say it wont model well, and physics says it cant. you have to believe me when i say it can. unless the designers/builders, or one of malibooms friends decides to post frequency by frequency numbers, or you take a trip to hear it in person, thats the best i can offer.

come on vj.. leave well enough alone. m5, i've kind of stated my view on the reasoning behind the designers choice, but maybe it wasn't fully clear. robin is responsible for the current middleweight world champion. it's a malibu. making malibus loud is nothing new for this man. just like i have information on jeep patriots and nissan maximas that you probably dont when it comes to natural response curves inside the vehicle. shoot... theres a certain vehicle that has anywhere from a .3 to 1.7db gain when you open the glove box. just one of those things. specific experience changes the game. now, as for the physics, i'm not going to lie, or bs my way through it. i do not have a degree in physics, nor do i have a very firm understanding. however, i can utilize references from actual physicists that have emphatically stated that car audio as a whole constantly defys the natural laws of physics. i couldnt tell you why, how, or which ones, only that they do. i believe we both have a pretty firm understanding of where both sides are coming from now though.. robin and dylan designed based off of their experience with box building and spl, and used the parameters given to finalize their decision, whereas you took the parameters, and used them first. what it really comes down to, and the reason i would get involved in the first place.. PLEASE do not doubt these design/builders.. they are not perfect, but they are respected. they have proven themselves with true results, and happy customers. im sure they would be more than happy to chat about it more if you got in touch with them privately.

i believe i can comment with minimal emotion.. so here goes. first off, an explaination of me. im not a bullet tweeter type of guy.. i have a front stage many sq guys would be jealous of. havent gotten into signal processing, time alignment, etc, because thats just not my calling.. i like it loud. but im also born and raised in florida. im as florida as you're going to get. yes, we have some people that ride around with a plethora of bullets, and... horns... but thats they're game. its cheap, loud, and gets attention. just like big tires on a truck, or a fancy paint job on a car. everyone has their own quirks, and to call out florida as a whole and try to put us down, that cant happen... notice im not turning this around on you, simply asking you to be respectful and retract your statement. call out individuals if you feel the need. now then. i honestly do see your point m5. you followed physics, and got the output. you stated that cabin, etc will change it slightly, but not enough to even it all out. you're partially correct. its not even.. it doesnt play a 155 across the board. we agree there. however.. i believe that if you had the chance to actually experience the car, and pick some music to listen to, and listen to different frequency ranges, you would be impressed, and change your mind. on the physics part. physics theories are defeatable. thats why they are theories and not laws. im not saying they have been defeated in this instance, simply that they can be, and are consistently. i personally believe that this build has proven its self, and utilizes the entire spectrum of variables extremely well in the design. not just the physics, and wave lengths, but also the pressure, angles, and acoustics of the vehicle. just for arguments sake, by the books, 3 decibels is an audible difference. im pretty certain that from 30-50 it maintains about a 3 db difference... if not close. so you can not tell an audible difference across the board on the frequencies. audible difference is the only difference that matters in the end. at least with this car. its a musical ground pounder.

xs power makes a great battery, but they are expensive. a lot of competitors are finding that a cheaper alternative is to find a massive agm deep cycle (such as a power ware, or deka) and place it either under the engine if it fits, or in the trunk with a brace to keep it from sliding around. if all you want to do is replace the battery under the hood, any of the brands named will do the trick. it really comes down to cost. with what you currently have, you probably arent going to see a big difference regardless of what you do, unless what you have now is dropping to like 9 volts.. lol

finally got some pics and vids uploaded. hopefully they work on here.. lol.

haha. no. im the one that just leaves well enough alone on those questions. my tastes in gear aren't normally accepted in the spl world. lol. and i suppose i forgot to mention.. all that audio gear, along with 700+ pounds of batteries, is all shoved inside a 2000 nissan maxima. )