Impious

Keep in mind you'll drop some muscle when you lose the fat as well.

I have no smartphones now. One of my big issues is going to be affording 4 smartphones at one shot. I know they all offer to finance them over the term of the contract but don't really want to do that. i've been hearing some good things about ting. https://ting.com/rates, they use the sprint network. in my area i'm stuck with verizon. Thanks. I'll have to check them out.

That stinks. Did you switch back to sprint ?

Cell contract comes up on the 6th. Need to find a new plan with data for the family, total of 4 lines. Any suggestions? I have sprint now. Through work I would get a 25% discount through AT&T, but I would hate to get a new ph #. Not sure how all of that works anymore.

Can't help you with supplements. I'm not a supplement guy, only thing I take is protein shakes. However, regarding the above...to my understanding, you can't do both. To truly gain muscle you need a calorie surplus, or at minimum the proper amount of calorie intake. To lose fat you need a calorie deficiency. This is the reason for the infamous "bulk-cut" cycle. Obviously you still want to eat cleanly when you are trying to gain muscle so you aren't just piling on fat. But you first need to figure out your goal. Gain muscle or lose fat, because it's VERY difficult to accomplish both at the same time.

Because the problem you are trying to fix is never a single frequency. Just like an EQ, the peaks and dips in the frequency response have a Q factor...it's either a wide (low Q) peak/dip or a narrow (high Q) peak/dip. Adjustable Q allows you to really narrow in on the specific problem you are trying to fix. Long story short parametrics typically have fewer bands than graphic, but parametric is more adjustable. So parametric is better at tackling specific problem areas in the frequency response whereas graphic is better at carving out the overall frequency response and tonality of the system. Both are effective, just at different things.

No, he is not. Both graphic and parametric have a Q factor. Just that parametric Q is adjustable and graphic is fixed. Even in lay men's terms it's wrong. There is a difference between saying it's fixed, and that it doesn't exist.

No. The Q factor determines the bandwidth of frequencies affected by the adjustment of the EQ band. High Q = narrow bandwidth, low Q = wide bandwidth. Both graphic and parametric EQ's have a Q factor. Parametric EQ allows you to select the center frequency and Q factor. Graphic EQ's have a fixed center frequency and Q factor.And to clarify further independent EQ means you can adjust left and right channels separately. This can be either graphic or parametric, but not all processors allow for independent equalization.

Wife is watching 12 years a slave. Not really into the movie, but every time I see a movie like this it makes me wonder... Had I been alive in that time, what type of person would I have been? We think of ourselves as a fair and just person, and repulsed by slavery and how they were treated. But with the culture of the day, the acceptance not just socially but legally...makes me wonder.

Gotcha. I guess in my head I assumed he was referring to the stock locations, but you are correct he may not be.

......

It's very seasonal and many factors involved, almost none of which SSA is in control of or they can predict in advance.

If you know sound, you would know that full range rear speakers turned up to the point they are "audible" destroys the illusion of stereo. The proper way to do rear fill, which is also coincidentally about what the first "surround sound" amounted to, is attenuated, band passed L-R (left minus right) rear fill which adds ambience and spactiousness to the sound without actually screwing up the stereophonic illusion...which is what you are doing not to mention the damage to the frequency response. To answer your question yes, the results of stuffing speakers likely designed for infinite baffle into small sealed enclosures would not be desireable. The only bandwidth affected by this would be the midbass, and maybe the midrange around specific frequencies if the internal reflections were terrible. Not to mention they look awful. That said I agree with the others. Sell the extra amp and rear speakers and spend the money on something more beneficial. Or keep the xtra amp, sell the rear speakers, buy a nice processor and go active with the front speakers which will make a 1000% improvement and way more of a benefit than rear speakers.

When I googled it a couple manuals showed up and the text displayed on the google search said 12db.

http://www.bcae1.com/xovrslop.htm Read the link for a basic understanding of how a crossover works. Yes, the frequencies above the lowpass crossover frequency are still there, they are just lower in level compared to the frequencies below the lowpass crossover frequency. If you have a system with a powerful substage and ver weak midbass, which based simply on your thread title I'm going to assume you have, then yes the frequencies above the crossover point will still be played at a very audible level by the subs. That 'nendo amp probably has 12db/oct crossovers. So if you are playing the subs at around 135db with a 50hz crossover, and the response above 50hz is relatively flat from the sub, then at 100hz you are still going to have 123db from the subs. At 150hz you are still going to have 111db. That's probably 10db or more louder than your speakers. In other words, at 150hz the sound from the subs would be twice as loud to the ear as the sound from your speakers. That's hypothetical of course, and ignores a few things, but the point is if you have a huge sub bass system then yes the output above the lowpass crossover is still going to be substantial. And having weak speakers is going to make,the "problem" appear even worse.

Well, yes, that's the way a crossover works. It isn't a brick wall. A crossover attenuates the frequencies above the crossover point at a certain rate, known as the slope. I'd be surprised if the crossover on the amp didn't do this job satisfactorily for your system. On the other hand it sounds like your system is all bass, so even with the crossover set the output at those frequencies from the subs is still well above that from the speakers.

I will say though I started going to the gym same time I quit smoking. Guy asked me what I do to deal with stress now. I hadn't really thought of it this way before, but the gym is an amazing stress reliever. My best workouts have came after a shitty day at work. Nothing quite like taking the pissed off out by thrashing your body good at the gym.

Not sure if I've mentioned this but after about 15 years I quit smoking back on Feb 10th. My employer charges a $50 per pay period surcharge on our health insurance for tobacco users. I didn't realize this before, but apparently the only way to get this surcharge off your insurance when you quit is to use a bullshit "QuitPower" program/help line. So here I am 90+ days after I quit on the phone with some douche talking about basically nothing. That was a gigantic waste of 15 minutes. And unfortunately they require a minimum of 2 calls.

The preamp voltage has nothing to do with loudness, higher bass output, etc. A higher preamp voltage increases signal to noise ratio of the signal of you are picking up noise during signal transmission, that's basically it. The ONLY difference a a new head unit could make for your goals is improved equalization or crossover features if you have a dip in the bass response somewhere to help even everything out. Otherwise the SPL of your system is going to be the same no matter what HU you have, from a Walmart brand to a top of the line unit. Makes no difference. Aside from EQ the head unit has no means by which to increase the output of your system. Why do you have the Clarion crossover?

What was interesting about it ?

Surprised they didn't go with Kicker or JBL for equipment. Those are the 2 brands she and the Bronco are best known with.

Really? I had always planned on eventually getting a larger amp for it.. Don't most people use about 2000w~~ on an xcon? If I was planning on running 1000w forever I would have spent less and got an icon. The xcon is begging for more power For the most part the choice of subwoofer has very little to do with the amount of power you are running. The difference between 1kw and 2kw is 3db under perfect conditions. Since that isn't reality and we have things like power compression to deal with, then the net gain would be somewhere less than 3db. Not a big difference to the ear. Couple that with the fact you are running a stock electrical system that will have a difficult time supporting a true 2kw...I think spending the $$ on a 2kw amp would be a gigantic waste of money.

If that RTA uses the phone's mic then it's pretty worthless for what you were trying to do. You don't need to know the linearity or frequency response of the system, you need to know the response at the outputs of the head unit or factory amps. You need to know what the system is doing electrically, not acoustically. You need to know what the factory system is doing to the signal in terms of built-in non-defeatable equalization and such.

The answer is very simple. STOP LISTENING TO ANYTHING THEY SAY AT WORK. Everything they've ever told you has been wrong.

Power rating is a thermal rating for the coils combined. A 500w power handling rating on a dual voice coil subwoofer would be 250w per coil. Series or parallel doesn't matter as the heat dissipation by each coil and the amount of power each coil receives is the same regardless of wiring method. 500w to a dual VC sub means each receives 250w no matter how you wire it. Not sure where you are getting all of this 200w is 400w nonsense from. There is no difference to the subwoofer between wiring a 2ohm DVC sub in series or parallel. Technically the BL is higher with series wiring, but since Re is also higher the net result is the same as is performance. Some would argue 4ohm allows for higher damping factor at the amplifier, and while technically true the difference is not audible. Amplifiers are usually more efficient at 4ohm than 1ohm, so that may be a factor.