Welcome to the IHoP

[mrogowski 6]

right up your alley...

[mrogowski 6]

at home.. drinking beer...

[mrogowski 6]

[///M5 2,833]

small world

[mrogowski 6]

admittedly, there was little if no advertising about it, so i'm not surprised about the crappy turnout. besides, the business sells the crap car audio anyway - nothing really worth going there for...

Just as bad here, though I read more people on CCA in SK interested in competing than in MB. One of the Visions stores sometimes throws a competition once a year.

i think it gets more popular further you head west. manitoba is the sinkhole for a lot of things.

[Tirefryr 1,742]

Colored clay FTW!

[topgun 262]

http://www.willitblend.com/videos.aspx?typ...mp;video=iphone

Is that covered under warranty?

[vladd 26]

just got through applying for yet another pharmacy tech job, we'll see if i even get an interview this time, i had julie answer all the personality questions because apparently mine isn't very...good

[ILuvJDM 0]

Tell me if this sounds good.

I'm going to use a 27Hz test tone to tune for the subsonic freq, by turning the knob down until I can't hear the tone, then turn it slightly back up. I figured 27 would be good since the box is tuned for 34hz, right?

I was gonna play a 60hz and an 80hz and tune somewhere in between to see how high I want the sub to play. I hate high notes being played in a sub, it makes my head hurt.

I actually found some test tones on Napster from Bass Mekanik, so there won't be a discrepency on volume from my daily listening music.

Let me know what you think

-John

[vladd 26]

what kind of sub and power?

I'd set the subsonic for about 27 but you're more worried about the mechanical limits of the sub, not whether or not you can hear that tone. I'd probably burp the sub at the loudest you'll be listening to, if the 27hz tone is moving the sub to where you're afraid it could bottom out, turn the subsonic up a little. For normal music listening you could probably run without one altogether so long as you aren't maxing the gains.

for how high you want the sub to play, that depends on your frontstage but i definately wouldn't play any higher than 80hz. I hate having to play up to 63 personally.

[ILuvJDM 0]

what kind of sub and power?

I'd set the subsonic for about 27 but you're more worried about the mechanical limits of the sub, not whether or not you can hear that tone. I'd probably burp the sub at the loudest you'll be listening to, if the 27hz tone is moving the sub to where you're afraid it could bottom out, turn the subsonic up a little. For normal music listening you could probably run without one altogether so long as you aren't maxing the gains.

for how high you want the sub to play, that depends on your frontstage but i definately wouldn't play any higher than 80hz. I hate having to play up to 63 personally.

I have an ICON 12" with a SAE-1000D

So for normal music, the sub would never drop below 30Hz? I've heard it hit some pretty rumbley notes and the sub sounds like it's struggling, so I figured that was over-excursion. I'll probably set my LPF to 60Hz cause I listened to the 80Hz and that's way to high for me...

thanks for the help

-John

[ANeonRider 3]

Subsonic filter rule of thumb:

Set it to 1/2 of an octave lower than tuning.

Tuned to 34Hz means you would set the subsonic to 25Hz.

You use a 25Hz tone, and move the filter until it gets very slightly quieter, then leave it there.

[ILuvJDM 0]

Subsonic filter rule of thumb:

Set it to 1/2 of an octave lower than tuning.

Tuned to 34Hz means you would set the subsonic to 25Hz.

You use a 25Hz tone, and move the filter until it gets very slightly quieter, then leave it there.

ok, thanks alot

-John

[2kchevy 3]

just got back from the movie theater not to long ago. Watched the new Harry Potter. Blows Transformers out of the water. I loved it.....very very well done.

[JimJ 11]

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Mercedes-Be...140542955QQrdZ1

:drool:

[audio-neon 34]

just got back from the movie theater not to long ago. Watched the new Harry Potter. Blows Transformers out of the water. I loved it.....very very well done.

I would have to say that it is definitely one of the least captivating of the Harry Potter movies. It does the book no justice. You take the 880 page Order of the Phoenix novel, and make it into the shortest harry potter movie yet? You emphasize Dolores Umbridge, a one book character, and yet you put Ron and Hermione on the back burner.

The first 4 movies did a much better job of telling the story. I am not saying that this movie was a bad movie. It is a very good movie. But when the series is over, many people will think of this one as the weakest, unless some other director can manage to over emphasize small characters, and loose the magic of Harry Potter.

[ANeonRider 3]

Never catch me watching Harry Potter.

[JimJ 11]

just got back from the movie theater not to long ago. Watched the new Harry Potter. Blows Transformers out of the water. I loved it.....very very well done.

Only movie I've been to see this year is Sicko, went a few days ago...

Definitely interesting.

[JimJ 11]

Never catch me watching Harry Potter.

I couldn't get through 20 minutes or so of the original when it was on TV not too long ago.

I just never got into it I guess.

[Acidburn 10]

Never catch me watching Harry Potter.

x2

[audio-neon 34]

I am willing to watch anything. I have actually bought a movie just for the soundtrack.

[Acidburn 10]

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...em=200126643267

[theabunai 3]

Jimj How was it ? I like all of Michael Moores stuff...

Anyways check my new Signature quote... Saw it on a forum couldn't resist it.. lol

[Acidburn 10]

black, black, yellow, blue, orange

[2kchevy 3]

just got back from the movie theater not to long ago. Watched the new Harry Potter. Blows Transformers out of the water. I loved it.....very very well done.

I would have to say that it is definitely one of the least captivating of the Harry Potter movies. It does the book no justice. You take the 880 page Order of the Phoenix novel, and make it into the shortest harry potter movie yet? You emphasize Dolores Umbridge, a one book character, and yet you put Ron and Hermione on the back burner.

The first 4 movies did a much better job of telling the story. I am not saying that this movie was a bad movie. It is a very good movie. But when the series is over, many people will think of this one as the weakest, unless some other director can manage to over emphasize small characters, and loose the magic of Harry Potter.

All though that would be a wonderful argument and point of view if I had actually finished the book....I respect your opinion. The movie was pretty long actually, just as long as the 4th movie if I remember correctly. I have 2 of them downloaded and this one in theaters felt pretty long. It started at 6:45 and we didn't get out till 9:00.....I dunno, I felt they did a wonderful job but since I haven't actually "finished" the book perhaps my judgment is a little off. The battle they had though, was def the best out of all of them. Wonderful graphics. Not near as good as Transformers but never the less, still pretty nifty.

Did anyone else notice how they changed the effects of that one spell though? The one Harry used to scare off the dementors? In the old movies it was white...in this one it was blue and used the shape of what happy thought the person had.