Impious

I don't think anyone here is trying to claim they "know more" than the designers or try to prove that as their point. But we don't need to know more than them, we just have to know the intended purpose of the device......which we do. I don't think anyone here is trying to "downtalk" someone else's invention, but rather discuss the potential benefit of such a device. Just because someone produces a product, it doesn't mean everyone has to agree that it has a potential benefit and is worth a purchase. People can disagree about the potential benefit of a product, and they can voice this opinion. If you have such an issue with someone voicing their own opinion, whether you agree with it or not, then you have a long road of life ahead of you. Why is it hard to believe someone may have an opposing opinion? I would actually argue that SMD and his designer (Tony?) didn't come up with the idea, either. Or atleast, they weren't the first. I remember several years ago Chris (he goes by "thechris" or "thch" on the forums) had an identical idea and was actually in the design phase....don't know what ever came of it. It will take me a little bit to find all of the info though. Ah ha...Success! Notice the thread dates; over 5 years ago. http://www.caraudio....tting-tool.html http://www.caraudio....tting-tool.html I don't really see how testing a device such as this really has anything to do with influencing someone's opinion of it's usefulness and benefits. Someone can form an opinion on the usefulness of a device such as this without needing to see the LEDs lighting up. The concept is fairly easy to grasp, and it's the concept and benefits of use that are in disagreement. If you think it's a good product then great....buy it. But don't expect everyone to agree with you, and don't expect those who disagree to bit their tongues. Instead of coming in here just to complain because you don't like M5's opinion, why don't you try refuting his statements with valid reasons as to why you see benefit in such a product and actually contribute to the conversation.

Honestly I couldn't tell you who it is. It depends on who or what actually owns the patent and design (Intellectual Property). If the IP is property of Image Dynamics as a company, then it will probably stay with the company. If the IP is property of Eric Stevens, then he could probably choose to take it with him. It really depends on all of the nitty-gritty legalities that only Eric and the partner know (and even then, they may disagree which could turn into a legal battle. Not saying that is the case, just a possibility as obviously this wasn't an amicable separation).

You're right. There's the proper way to accomplish a goal, and then the improper way. PNS and equivalent products fall (pun intended) into the latter category.

Honestly, no it doesn't. That's not an insult to you in particular, anyone who successfully competes or operates a business designing enclosures. We've had this (or a similar) discussion before on this forum, ask Cableguy In the SQ arena I've seen many well respected world champions who've been praised for their installation and tuning abilities for many years speak misinformation and hold on to beliefs which were very much against the facts. Were they "right" because they could point to 10 systems that they've installed and tuned that won competitions, or because they have a shelf of trophies themselves? No, they weren't. Their information was just as wrong, regardless of their "credentials". The point is, credentials aren't part of the discussion. They have no place in it. They aren't relevant. Information is accurate or inaccurate, "right" or "wrong", regardless of the credentials of the person providing the information. Having credentials they can point to doesn't make their information any more right, and not providing credentials doesn't make their information any less right. Does it matter if M5 is a 30 year old keyboard commando sitting in his mom's basement if the information he's providing is accurate? No, it doesn't matter at all. The information can stand on it's own, regardless of the credentials of the poster. That goes for people on both sides of the discussion; M5, Robin, yourself, etc. If the information they're providing is accurate, then it's accurate regardless of the credentials of the person providing the information. If it's inaccurate, then it's just as inaccurate regardless of the credentials of the poster. This is the Argument from Authority I mentioned earlier. Information isn't inherently "correct" just because it's coming from someone assumed to be an authority. Conversely, information isn't incorrect just because it comes from someone not assumed to be an authority. It's a logically flawed argument. If the information is accurate or inaccurate, then it can be demonstrated to be such regardless of who's providing the information. Credentials have nothing to do with the validity of information.

Not quite. Those probably work by simply lighting up the light when the output voltage reaches a certain level, not actually measuring the signal for clipping.

It's measuring harmonic distortion. Which is why they give you a test disc that plays specific frequencies, as it will only be capable of measuring the harmonics of those specific frequencies. If you, for example, play a 60hz tone then there will be harmonic distortion at 120hz, 180hz, 240hz, etc. The 60hz tone is the fundamental and the multiple of the fundamental is the order of the harmonic distortion. So 60hz is the fundamental, then 120hz is the 2nd order harmonic, 180hz is the 3rd order, 240hz is the 4th order, so on and so forth. So all it's doing is measuring the level of the harmonics in relation to the fundamental and when it gets to a certain level it lights up a light. I can't give specifics of it's design or explain exactly how it determines when to light up (as I simply don't know), but that's basically the jist of how it's going to work.

They aren't actually "done" per say. The short version of what's going on: Eric Stevens founded ID. He later brought in an investor/co-owner. Recently the co-owner and Eric were unable to work some things out, so Eric left (or was "forced out", depending on how you look at it). When Eric left, Matt B. left as well I do believe. The co-owner now has control of ID as a company. What path ID will take now that Eric and Matt are gone is not yet certain. I don't believe anybody has really heard much of anything out of the new owners to see what their plans are. Eric I don't believe has publicly stated what his intentions are now either.

Those are definitely v3's. You can tell simply by their design. Which is good, should be much better than the v2's and other previous versions. The CD-1e v3's would be much closer in performance to the CD1Pro's than the prior versions of the CD-1e's. Yes, if you have a shallower slope you would need to end up using a higher crossover point. I honestly don't know much off hand about the processing units you are using.

Actually, it appears that the 1st set you have there are the newer CD-1e v3, and the second set as you indicated are the older CD-1e v2. The differences are that the v3 uses actual compression drivers, whereas the v2 used cheaper and lower quality performing piezo drivers. Basically, the v3 should be significantly better in just about every regard than the v2's. Power handling and sensitivity I honestly don't know about for the V3's, the sensitivity of the v2 was pretty low for a horn due to the cheaper piezo driver. IIRC the v2 didn't actually need a crossover since the piezo rolled off on it's own, for the v3 you would want to crossover around 1200hz on a steep slope (24db/oct)...even though the v3 are actual compression drivers they can't play quite as low as some of the larger compression drivers ID uses on the higher level horns. Short story is there should be no reason at all to use the v2 over the v3. Huh? The v2 and v3 will be completely different as they use completely different drivers, including using an actual compression driver instead of a piezo unit.

That song is actually by the Deftones, but Maynard wrote most of the lyrics, helped with some of the arrangement and performs most of the vocals. That is all

^^ This guys, not everyone is as familiar with this process as some of us may be. Like Sean said, play a 2500hz tone with the crossover set to off or flat and measure the output voltage (DMM should be set to measure AC Volts). It doesn't really matter what the voltage output is at this point. We are simply measuring the output voltage now so that we have a baseline to work from. To find the -3db point, and your target voltage, you would multiply the voltage you measured by .707. Then turn the crossover back on and adjust the crossover dial until the voltage decreases to the target voltage you just calculated. When the voltage reaches that target voltage, the crossover is set to 2500hz. So, for example, let's say you play the 2500hz test tone and measure an output voltage of 5V with the crossover set to flat (or off). Then your target voltage for a 2500hz crossover point would 5 * .707 = 3.535V. So turn the crossover on and measure the output voltage while adjusting the crossover knob. When the output voltage drops to 3.54V, that's the -3db point of the signal.....meaning you successfully set the crossover to 2500hz. For those that don't know, for a standard Butterworth crossover (the type of crossover found in most, but not all, amplifiers) the crossover point is defined as the -3db point of the signal. Hence why we know that the crossover is set to 2500hz when the signal has decreased by -3db. And we calculate the -3db point of the signal as the point where the signal has decreased to .707 of it's original value because for voltage the conversion to decibels is 20*log(Voltage1/Voltage2). So 20*log(1 / .707) = 3.01db. Therefore, the point where the signal has decreased to .707 of it's original value is the -3db point of the signal, and the -3db point of the signal defines the crossover point Now you know, and knowing is half the battle.

If you have access to a DMM, you can get the xover set to 2500hz. Let us know and we can explain to you how to do this.

Going to be really tough to fit even a single 8" ported in an enclosure with a gross volume of 1-1.25cuft. The problem with small lower tuned enclosures is that the port length ends up being really long. It wouldn't be unusual for the port to actually take up as much or more gross volume than the actual enclosure airspace for the driver. Honestly for your goals, I think finding a good 10" or 12" driver to run sealed is probably the best option. I know you think it'd be fun to do something with small drivers, but I think it would be fairly difficult to achieve all of your goals with that type of setup. You can run the small drivers sealed and give up some output. You can run small drivers ported and give up some space. Or you can go with a more conventional single larger diameter driver sealed and achieve your space and probably output goals while maybe running a little more power than you originally wanted. And with as cheap as power is these days, if I were going to give up on one of my criteria it would be the power.

anybody?? Pretty easy to model. Load the driver into an accurate modeling program that graphs cone excursion. Input the two enclosures your comparing as well as the power levels and see how and where the excursion is different in the two enclosures. Ideally you would want to keep the excursion for the driver under Xmax. But the relative differences in excursion will give you an idea of the relative mechanical power handling limits of the enclosure. Obviously if you don't hit Xmax until 10hz then it's not likely going to cause a problem. If you reach Xmax at 30hz, well then you are probably using too much power. Definitely not a perfect model as it doesn't take into account things like power compression..........so even if the graph shows you'll reach Xmax at 30hz with 1kw you may in fact not because of power compression, but it will give you a general idea of the relative differences between enclosures.

Fixed.

together? Well played sir, well played.

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.

Well, I had a long reply started and then my laptop shut down because of the piece of shit replacement power adapter my wife bought I'm tired and need to go to bed. So, just a couple quick comments; 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.

Sorry, I know this isn't "on topic" but couldn't let it go. There is absolutely nothing in any theory that states or indicates sealed enclosures are "the best hands down". There is no theory which indicates sealed enclosures are always the best option, that they are better in every regard than any other enclosure type, or that they are the best enclosure regardless of goals or circumstances.

I'll give it a shot It changes the game....somewhat, depending on what game is being played. If one were designing an enclosure to maximize SPL at a specific frequency or frequency region then yes, some of those details are important as the end result is ultimately determined by the highest number on the meter. To do that you are best served by knowing as many of the little nuances of the vehicle as you can. Some of them will help determine the enclosure design, others will not. For example, would you design the enclosure differently if having the glove box open increases the SPL measured at a specific location at a specific frequency by .5db? Probably not. The enclosure design would majorly be the same, you would just make sure to have the glove box open during competition and metering. So that's irrelevant to the discussion of enclosure design. Would it be helpful to know something like the peak frequency of the vehicle with the enclosure in place? Sure, if strictly achieving the highest peak SPL were the goal, as that would help determine appropriate tuning for that specific situation. On the other hand, not all of those little nuances make a difference in the region of performance M5 is referring to. I'm not going to go back and scour the other thread, I believe Malibu stated his goals were not numbers driven but rather a loud system with music and let the numbers fall where they may. In which case, will knowing that there is a .5db peak with the glove box open going to make a difference? No, it's not. It's not audible. It's irrelevant, in this particular aspect of the discussion. Even a 1.5db difference (for example) is pretty much irrelevant when discussing audible performance characteristics....which according to Malibu was the goal, and hence the goal the system would have been designed around. Is knowing the peak frequency of the cabin going to matter to the enclosure design? Maybe a minor part, but since we are more worried about the overall shape of the response rather than performance at a single specific frequency or narrow range of frequencies and we're not worried about the peak SPL there are going to be significantly more contributing factors than simply the peak frequency of the vehicle. So while Robin having experience with the Malibu I'm sure is beneficial in a system like Cricket's where achieving specific SPL targets is the goal, not all of that information is entirely relevant or driving factors to a system designed explicitly for playing music. For example (one example), does Robin have exact and highly detailed information about the complete transfer function of the vehicle with that specific wall installed? If not, then he's probably guesstimating just as much as M5. In short; just having information isn't as relevant as knowing what that information is and how applicable that knowledge is to the specific scenario. So the question is, what specific knowledge does Robin have that gives him special insight into the in-vehicle response of that (or any) particular enclosure in the Malibu. How "special" is that knowledge or the response of a Malibu that makes M5's (or anyone else with a fairly in-depth understanding of acoustics) assumptions completely invalid in the realm that we are discussing (which is not peak SPL at a single frequency or narrow bandwidth)? And I can emphatically state that this is false and with only a laypersons understanding of physics. With enough information and a properly constructed model, it would be entirely possible to fairly accurately predict the in-vehicle performance of any enclosure (or speaker) in any vehicle. Any arrangement, any alignment, any speakers, any power level, etc. It would be able to be predicted with enough accurate information and an accurate model. The problem is, this would be extremely difficult (but not entirely impossible). And that's the the moral of the story. It's the technical difficultly, not the lack of ability, that prohibits someone from doing it. If it were due to a lack of ability then it would be properly classified as supernatural and defying the natural laws of physics. But it's not, it's the difficulty in such a task that makes it prohibitive. Additionally, without enough information, a proper model or a proper understanding of all of the physics involved it's also sometimes difficult to pinpoint a specific reason of why a specific result is achieved. It's a lack of knowledge, not a lack of the physics to be able to describe such an event. It's an issue of comprehension of the event, not a lack of capability for physics to describe the event. In short; Physics can describe it. It's not miraculous, supernatural or outside of the realm of physics. There may be limits to available information, appropriate models or any one individual's understanding.....but because someone can't immediately describe an event with physics it doesn't mean that it falls outside of the realm of physics and can be classified as supernatural.

These are my main goals: 1) Moderately loud bass 2) Small budget (don't have a set amount just yet) 3) Low power 4) Very small enclosure(s) I realize that with a system like this I won't be flexing any windshields or winning any competitions (I don't compete anyway), but there's still that part of me that wants people to hear it, see what I have and then start looking around for more subs. I also kind of want to do something a little different than just "a sub in a box in the back of an SUV", and running multiple smaller subs seems like something that might fit that bill. IMO your best option then would be to look for something to run ported. It would be a little more difficult to get "significant" output (your "moderately" is probably equivalent to my "really") in the lower frequency region with small subs in a sealed enclosure for various reasons. Also, there are a few givens in audio. One of them is known as Hoffman's Iron Law. There's a long explanation as to why this is the case, but simply stated you can only achieve two of the following three: 1) Small Enclosure, 2) High Efficiency, 3) Low Frequency Extension. Your list appears to dictate that you are choosing # 1 and # 2, in which case you will necessarily give up # 3. The transfer function of the vehicle will help some in the low frequency extension department....but realistically if you want really low power with moderately high output (i.e. high efficiency) in a small enclosure, you are necessarily going to give up low frequency extension. So you have to ask yourself......moderately loud where in the subbass frequency range? If you want loud from ~50hz and up, for example, your goals should work fine. If you want loud and impressiveness at 30hz, well.....your goals are necessarily going to eliminate that as a possibility. Food for thought. Do you have a target budget? A target space you would like the enclosure to fit in (dimensions ideally)? A target power level?

What are your goals for the system? That has a lot to do with enclosure and sub selection as well. How much power are you planning on using?

EBP = Fs/Qes EBP less than or equal to 50 means the driver is best suited for sealed enclosures EBP between 50 and 90 means the driver can be used in either ported or sealed, but the closer to the extremes you are the better the driver will likely perform in that given enclosure type (i.e. EBP of 60, the driver is a little more suited to sealed but could possibly be used ported) EBP equal to or greater than 90 means the driver is best suited to ported enclosures Enclosure size requirements is hard to pin-point without knowing what enclosure type you are looking for. Are you looking for sealed or ported? Also, there isn't a single "requirement" or suggestion. There's an almost infinite number of alignments, some have special names others do not. You can use T/S parameters to predict performance in a given enclosure, the enclosure size necessary to achieve a certain alignment, etc. But you can't look at them and say "This sub needs 1cuft", as that 1cuft enclosure will simply result in one specific alignment out of many possible options. Going larger or smaller may be beneficial depending on the needs and goals. I was working on a write up of T/S parameters and how to use them. I've been slacking and only have about 5% of it done......I guess maybe I should get back to working on that.....

Review is probably not going to happen. I will say that IMO you won't find anything else near their current price point that compares.

If you only want to use it for setting gains.....you are better off just saving your money. If you have some other electrical need or purpose for one, then it makes sense. But setting a gain is really not that difficult to justify the expense for that single purpose.