invert or no a level 6 18

[The A Team]

Here's a question for A Team. I know who you are. I trust you. How would the difference be made when used in a ported enclosure application?

I understand your statement as if you were to test it in an infinite baffle application, the front of the cone has no motor/basket/etc obstruction as the rear wave would see. But in a ported enclosure, are you not STILL implemented both the front AND rear wave? Whereas in either situation, the front and rear wave would both be used to achieve output?

If you say it is true, then I trust your words a lot more than my quick brainstorming session. But using a common sense approach to this topic, this is what still has me curious?

I had actually made mention of this in my post from last night that i closed accidentally.

Yes that is the purpose of a port to convert rear waves 180 degrees into usable front wave. This is obviously more efficient. Now look at how the output goes from rear to front wave forms. There is always cancellation occurring inside confined spaces. also look at the output areas, subs cone area vs port area. Again look at restrictions and the path a rear wave whether it comes off the front of the sub or the back of the sub (if inverted) has to go through to become a output. Again you will find you get the majority of your output from the subs wave outside the enclosure. You will however have greater SPL inside the enclosure because its pressurizing a smaller loaded area, but that means if the SPL is trapped inside the box it is not getting outside, and you are not inside the box. So to run over this again you get the most output from outside the enclosure (sub normal or inverted) and less from the port or rear wave output. So now outside of the enclosure put the test i stated to go use and think about this. Do you want your more efficient outputting wave trapped inside the enclosure or do you want it outside where it is combined with the more efficient output of the enclosure? Thats right why not pair up the two best outputs for more gain? Variables or not you want to optimize every aspect of the system, so why bottle neck here?

I have nothing against inverted, but this is all stuff i know from years...... and years of playing with this stuff. And like i said most of this here is basic look at it and see the differences.

Here is a good visual... Look at this pic, you put this motor in front of your main output and you can see how it would affect it in a HUGE way. If you have your glasses on and look real hard you can see there is something in the way on the back end of this sub, and all subs.

[tacomabanga1986]

lol, i vote for some free air vids of the level 6 woofer pron

[carlosg_313]

i have a question, if i decide to invert my sub, if i had the magnet like 3-4 inches away from the ceiling, will that cause any problems?

[Cashdollar2009]

Here's a question for A Team. I know who you are. I trust you. How would the difference be made when used in a ported enclosure application?

I understand your statement as if you were to test it in an infinite baffle application, the front of the cone has no motor/basket/etc obstruction as the rear wave would see. But in a ported enclosure, are you not STILL implemented both the front AND rear wave? Whereas in either situation, the front and rear wave would both be used to achieve output?

If you say it is true, then I trust your words a lot more than my quick brainstorming session. But using a common sense approach to this topic, this is what still has me curious?

I had actually made mention of this in my post from last night that i closed accidentally.

Yes that is the purpose of a port to convert rear waves 180 degrees into usable front wave. This is obviously more efficient. Now look at how the output goes from rear to front wave forms. There is always cancellation occurring inside confined spaces. also look at the output areas, subs cone area vs port area. Again look at restrictions and the path a rear wave whether it comes off the front of the sub or the back of the sub (if inverted) has to go through to become a output. Again you will find you get the majority of your output from the subs wave outside the enclosure. You will however have greater SPL inside the enclosure because its pressurizing a smaller loaded area, but that means if the SPL is trapped inside the box it is not getting outside, and you are not inside the box. So to run over this again you get the most output from outside the enclosure (sub normal or inverted) and less from the port or rear wave output. So now outside of the enclosure put the test i stated to go use and think about this. Do you want your more efficient outputting wave trapped inside the enclosure or do you want it outside where it is combined with the more efficient output of the enclosure? Thats right why not pair up the two best outputs for more gain? Variables or not you want to optimize every aspect of the system, so why bottle neck here?

I have nothing against inverted, but this is all stuff i know from years...... and years of playing with this stuff. And like i said most of this here is basic look at it and see the differences.

Here is a good visual... Look at this pic, you put this motor in front of your main output and you can see how it would affect it in a HUGE way. If you have your glasses on and look real hard you can see there is something in the way on the back end of this sub, and all subs.

Makes perfect sense to me. I appreciate you taking the time to clarify those things for me.

[carlosg_313]

i have a question, if i decide to invert my sub, if i had the magnet like 3-4 inches away from the ceiling, will that cause any problems?

anyone?

[Mr. Darkjustice]

so pretty much what i got from purfectlyinsane is that all i gotta do is come into a thread and say 'nope cant even doin it, variables' and i has knowledge? i mean no offense to him but thats all i seen in all his posts other than analogies and comparisons that dont fit the situation.

[tonedeaf]

In my opinion, plexi windows > invert. For the op.

As for the bullshit purfecty keeps bringing up, there are only so many variables in a single install. You say, 'but it's not the same, variables this, variables that!' but just because he's inverting the woofer doesn't mean the box design has changed or he's going to use a different amp. What a team is saying, one of the loudest competitors out there, is if done correctly regular mounting will be better. You're saying it can't be proven, but a team and many others have tested it. Search for tests or do them yourself if you dont believe him. You can't beat a dead horse repeatedly saying it can't be tested therefore his point is null.

[tonedeaf]

Didn't see your last reply a team. Thanks for the novel clarifying your point.

[PurfectlyInsane]

so pretty much what i got from purfectlyinsane is that all i gotta do is come into a thread and say 'nope cant even doin it, variables' and i has knowledge? i mean no offense to him but thats all i seen in all his posts other than analogies and comparisons that dont fit the situation.

My analogies does fit.

My post is my product. Maybe I should of pointed that out.

The A Team- that is what I asked you to explain in my first post. Why did it take so long? Like I said I don't care about background info as much as the post. If you post something and it makes sense, and I see how you got your answer, that's good.

That's how I expect people to look at my post.

And I didn't say it couldn't be tested. Damn people. I only said a simple swap isn't going to give you a definite answer. And in any giving install, you can't give a difinte answer, without testing, that install. Then the outcome could only be good for that install.

Sure, the normal mounting style could be loudest in thoery, but that doesn't mean it will be in every install. That's all I was getting it. Yet people had to complicate things to the max.

If this doesn't clear up anything, yall are just being difficult.

Also, when you make a point about my post, you only comment on one little thing I say. Like you skim read then come to a conclusion based of a few words I say.

I never said it couldn't be tested.

Maybe you should reread my posts a few times, to make sure you understand.

I sometimes read peoples post 3-4 times trying to make sure I fully understand what they are saying, instead of assuming because I read it wrong.

Edited April 5, 2011 by PurfectlyInsane

[Mr. Darkjustice]

too long to requote

ive read every post, including all of yours. i have no reason to reread yours because youre pretty much said the same things in each post except different analogies. and i never said you said it couldnt be tested. but you cant just say oh variables and expect people to just leave it at that. EVERYTHING in life is affected by somethin else. and jesus christ man cliff note your posts lol