Event Opals VS Focal Twin6 Be Monitor..Helppp

[Fleaman]

Originally Posted by nms

Cherry picking.. you mean like when I was comparing RMS amp specs and you debated with me for a few pages til we realized you didn't catch on that RMS is lower than program power? lol. I don't blame you for not trusting rated specs. They can be misleading when read incorrectly.

Post a link to back up your claim that 'RMS' power is lower than continuous power. Note that I changed your 'program' power to 'continuous power'? Yes, because Event doesn't have a 'program power' listing, just 'continuous', 'long term' and 'burst'.

Many amp/speaker manufactures use RMS and Continuous interchangeably. Some even call it 'RMS continuous power'.
Since neither Focal or Event specifies what formula of measurement they used or what the distortion level was at the power rating listed, it's kinda pointless to argue the point, but hey, you love to argue about nothing.

Audio power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Continuous power ratings are a staple of performance specifications for audio amplifiers and, sometimes, loudspeakers. Continuous power is sometimes incorrectly referred to as RMS power and is derived from Root mean square (RMS), a method for measuring AC voltage or current.

In its 1974 Amplifier Rule meant to combat the unrealistic power claims made by many hi-fi amplifier manufacturers, the Federal Trade Commission prescribed continuous power measurements performed with sine wave signals on advertising and specification citations for amplifiers sold in the US. Typically, an amplifier's power specifications are calculated by measuring its RMS output voltage, with a continuous sine wave signal, at the onset of clipping—defined arbitrarily as a stated percentage of total harmonic distortion (THD)—into specified load resistances. Typical loads used are 8 and 4 ohms per channel; many amplifiers used in professional audio are also specified at 2 ohms.

Continuous power measurements do not actually describe the highly varied signals found in audio equipment but are widely regarded as a reasonable way of describing an amplifier's maximum output capability. Most amplifiers are capable of higher power if driven further into clipping, with corresponding increases in harmonic distortion, so the continuous power output rating cited for an amplifier should be understood to be the maximum power (at or below a particular acceptable amount of harmonic distortion) in the frequency band of interest. For audio equipment, this is nearly always the nominal frequency range of human hearing, 20 Hz to 20 kHz.

In loudspeakers, thermal capacities of the voice coils and magnet structures largely determine continuous power handling ratings. However, at the lower end of a loudspeaker's usable frequency range, its power handling might necessarily be derated because of mechanical excursion limits. For example, a subwoofer rated at 100 watts may be able to handle 100 watts of power at 80 hertz, but at 25 hertz it might not be able to handle nearly as much power since such frequencies would, for some drivers in some enclosures, force the driver beyond its mechanical limits much before reaching 100 watts from the amplifier. The continuous ("RMS") value is also referred to as the nominal value, there being a regulatory requirement to use it.

Opal>
Low freq amp, Continuous Power @ 5 Ohms** 387 watts
High freq amp, Continuous Power @ 5 Ohms** 112 watts

Originally Posted by nms

Make no mistake, I saw the rest of that thread you linked. I also caught on to the inexperience of the poster though and read into that scenario a little differently than you did. If you can't filter what you read on forums properly you'll end up paying for it.

So, you decided to 'filter' your interpretation of another posters post by snipping a line out of context, posting it here, and ignoring what the poster was really trying to say? Especially in his next post about how his Opal mixes translated better than his Twin mixes?

Originally Posted by nms

The amateur notion that a professional release is free from poor recording/mixing/mastering is of course not reality.

Ok, so you're calling him an 'amateur' now? Perhaps I should PM him the link to these posts so that he can defend himself?
What's worse is that is not what he said, you are of course plagiarizing him as you so expertly do around here. You supported your argument by posting his quote with the last line missing which is KEY to his comment>
"remember, these are finished albums that have been released and in theory should sound good especially on a monitor like the Twins."

Originally Posted by nms

If it was me I'd have done a third mix going back to the Twins to confirm it wasn't just a simple matter of getting better at mixing the track.

Of course, something MUST be wrong! lol. After all, he's just an 'amateur' (even though apparently he mixes work for other artists)

Originally Posted by nms

I hate poor demo conditions though. It's so much better to demo in your studio but at least demoing monitors in the same room is wise. Most monitors can and should sound better in your studio.

Which ironically is exactly what that poster did. He even went further and did mixes on Both the Twins and the Opals. Yet you seem to be dismissive that the reason the Opal mixes translated better than the Twins had anything to do with the monitors. Well, I wouldn't expect anything less from you

[nms]

Originally Posted by Fleaman

Post a link to back up your claim that 'RMS' power is lower than continuous power. Note that I changed your 'program' power to 'continuous power'? Yes, because Event doesn't have a 'program power' listing, just 'continuous', 'long term' and 'burst'.

Yes I sure did note that you changed my wording to mean something entirely different. Interesting tactic I suppose though I really wouldn't recommend applying it in every day use! That's what I mean about not reading specs properly. RMS power is lower than program power, as RMS & and continuous power are the same thing and are "the lower" spec. Long term power as Event calls it is program power which should be the next rating up. Lastly you have burst which is peak.

Somehow I don't think this went the way you thought it was gonna go.

Deduct one facepalm!

[Fleaman]

Originally Posted by nms

Yes I sure did note that you changed my wording to mean something entirely different. Interesting tactic I suppose though I really wouldn't recommend applying it in every day use! That's what I mean about not reading specs properly. RMS power IS lower than program power, as RMS & and continuous power are the same thing and are "the lower" spec. Long term power as Event calls it is program power which should be the next highest rating. Lastly you have burst which is peak.

Somehow I don't think this went the way you thought it was gonna go.

Deduct one facepalm!

Huh?? I changed (and told you I did) 'program' pwr to 'continuous', because NEITHER Event nor Focal uses the word 'program power'.

And now you are saying: "RMS & and continuous power are the same thing"
Ok, good. Focal lists 'RMS' and Event lists 'continuous'. Guess what? The Event 'continuous' pwr rating is more than Focals 'RMS' which you just admitted are the 'SAME THING'.

Originally Posted by nms

Somehow I don't think this went the way you thought it was gonna go.

LOL.

[goldencd]

Originally Posted by nms

Let's be realistic here. I can't see how any working professional who isn't new here would be unaware that these forums aren't filled with expert opinions at every turn and that the *majority* of posts are from amateurs, hobbiests, and generally not high calibre professionals. That's not meant to offend anyone but we should all know that's true.

I dropped $1800 on a huge forum favorite last year and shook my head in disbelief when I got it. I couldn't believe some of the flaws that went unmentioned and was really happy to get rid of it. I've come across obvious and unmentioned flaws in other forum favorites I bought previously as well, so yeah I have no reservations in saying that you have to be incredibly careful about filtering what you read on this or ANY Internet forum. That's nothing to do with my ego and everything to do with reality.

I've made my mistakes and paid the price.. whether it was wasted time (for eg. the year I held off from buying my Twins which were the perfect fit) or thousands of dollars. It definitely leaves a bad taste in your mouth and now and then I try to help others avoid making the same mistakes.

I'm never one to say anyone's wrong for their personal taste. There are so many ways you can go wrong when auditioning gear though which can end up giving you false impressions & hurting your decisions. I've gone through a lot of gear the past 3 years with somewhere around $40k in purchases. It's an expensive industry, but it helps at least if the purchases you do make are well informed and the best fit for your budget range and needs.

I agree, but some people are compulsive gear shoppers who spend all day debating specs, being critical and never actually do anything with the gear but talk about it. Just trying to gauge the advice. Is it from a working professional or a guy with money and time but little else? Let me be clear by saying it isn't bad to be a collector or afficianado by any means, however when I want to know how a car works I go to a mechanic not a curator.

So how about that music? From one working professional to another.

[nms]

Originally Posted by Fleaman

Focal lists 'RMS' and Event lists 'continuous'. Guess what? The Event 'continuous' pwr rating is more than Focals 'RMS' which you just admitted are the 'SAME THING'.

lol! For anyone wondering why I've sounded so repetitive in this thread and why simple things produced long pointless debates with this guy, this is why!

Here, I'll correct you one last time so dig deep, get all your cores running at full processing power and hyper thread that shit...

RMS = Continuous (lowest)
Program = Long Term (higher)
Peak = Burst (highest)

Now look over that event specsheet noting the order of those. You'll see they list in the correct order everywhere except one place where the middle spec was mislabeled as continuous and the low spec was labeled long term.

Learn to read a spec sheet if you're going to drag someone into several pages of debate next time man. Thanks in advance!

[nms]

Originally Posted by goldencd

I agree, but some people are compulsive gear shoppers who spend all day debating specs, being critical and never actually do anything with the gear but talk about it.

I think it's apparent why there's been so much talk and debate over simple specs. Never have I witnessed such confusion over a few basic numbers.

I've gone through a lot of gear but there was always a point. These days my turnover is slow though and everything is nicely settled. Even grabbing that SB4001 that I plan to pickup has to wait til after the summer as I just threw down on upgrading converters and busy getting stuff done.

[goldencd]

Originally Posted by nms

I think it's apparent why there's been so much talk and debate over simple specs. Never have I witnessed such confusion over a few basic numbers.

I've gone through a lot of gear but here was always a point. These days my turnover is slow though and everything is nicely settled. Even grabbing that SB4001 that I plan to pickup has to wait til after the summer as I just threw down on upgrading converters and busy getting stuff done.

It's worth it... To my question though, you have nothing to hear?

[Fleaman]

Originally Posted by nms

lol! For anyone wondering why I've sounded so repetitive in this thread and why simple things produced long pointless debates with this guy, this is why!

Here, I'll correct you one last time so dig deep, get all your cores running at full processing power and hyper thread that shit...

RMS = Continuous (lowest)
Program = Long Term (higher)
Peak = Burst (highest)

Now look over that event specsheet noting the order of those. You'll see they list in the correct order everywhere except one place where the middle spec was mislabeled as continuous and the low spec was labeled long term.

Learn to read a spec sheet if you're going to drag someone into several pages of debate next time man. Thanks in advance!

First, list a link to back up your claim of>>>

RMS = Continuous (lowest)
Program = Long Term (higher)
Peak = Burst (highest)

You still have yet to do this (as usual). You list the above as though this is a common way to list amp specs. Where is the link???

2nd, Event lists a continuous pwr spec but you dismiss it because it's in a different order? And this 'order' is some sort of law that exposes the true rating of amp power?

3rd, 'program power' > your looking at the driver spec, NOT the amp power spec, lol.

Essentially you're claiming that Event's 'continuous power' rating is an 'error' and that it being in an order you don't like, is proof of this?? When in actuality the difference of order on Event's spec sheet is due to you looking at driver spec, then the amp spec!!!

And yet, Focal only lists one power rating (no order to confuse you), with absolutely no other spec as to how they measured it, and that's good enough for you to conclude that the Twins 'RMS' is the real 'continuous' and that Event's 'continuous' is actually a typo/error??

Wow, never thought you could spin it that way....."it's an error by Event", when actually you are the one looking at the wrong spec, specs for the driver power handling capability, lol.
Just like when you claimed the Opal tweeter amp was 50w only, when that was a spec for the tweeter driver, not the amp....and you claim I can't read spec sheets

Oh, I'm STILL waiting for your links to back up your claims.

[nms]

Originally Posted by goldencd

It's worth it... To my question though, you have nothing to hear?

This is an anonymous account for me so I keep my name & what I do completely separate. It's the wise choice for anyone who's as big a gear nerd & as forthcoming about their beliefs & opinions! lol.

It might seem through this thread that I've been repetitive about specs, but this is how I expected that to go initially:

"well, in comparing basics of the 2 monitors the Twins have 3 drivers, 3 amps, with 150+150w to the sub & low-mid and 100w RMS to the tweeter... while the Opals have 2 drivers with 275w RMS to the lows and 50w RMS to the tweeters"

"yes, that looks to be correct according to the rated specs provided by these two well regarded companies"

~discussion moves on to other factors

Instead I got roped into pages worth of debate over specs, their validity, and whether or not having 3 drivers powered by 3 amps with 3 different crossover ranges counts as a 3way monitor.

lol.. at least it's time I wasted while killing time on my phone and not in my studio when I should have been working! Still sad though considering how long we've been parading this dead horse up and down the street! Damn gearslutz app.

[goldencd]

Originally Posted by nms

This is an anonymous account for me so I keep my name & what I do completely separate. It's the wise choice for anyone who's as big a gear nerd & as forthcoming about their beliefs & opinions! lol.
.

You my friend are on the crazy train... You would't want Event or Focal to send their ninja assassins after you because you don't like their product. Or worse yet, a flea man heist of your gear... Ha! I love it.

Peace.

Pick up an sb4001... Would be worth it for 2x the money in my opinion.

[hasbeen]

Originally Posted by nms

This is an anonymous account for me so I keep my name & what I do completely separate. It's the wise choice for anyone who's as big a gear nerd & as forthcoming about their beliefs & opinions! lol.

[nms]

lol.. oh boy, more debate over specs!

Perhaps you'd be so kind as to explain why in the isolated case of that spec sheet the continuous (RMS) spec isn't the lowest one?

It's actually regulated by the FTC that a manufacturer must list the continuous/RMS ratings. If a company only lists one figure, as in the case of most of the online retailers, by law it's supposed to be continuous/RMS. This is why we see them listed by the lower spec and not the middle. We're talking about a company who has had to do multiple revisions already on the Opals though and where it's not uncommon to hear about people who had to go through a pair or two due to faults.. so it shouldn't be shocking to see that convenient mislabeling.

If you look at what the drivers are rated at that should be indicative as well as well if you feel like putting 2 +2 together:

Tweeter: 25w Continuous/RMS
Low: 240w Continuous/RMS

lol.. most ridiculous debate ever I swear. Can we be done with this?

Originally Posted by goldencd

You my friend are on the crazy train... Ha. I love it.

I've been in music professionally for 15 yrs and tour as well. Anyone who's been around the block knows what's up here. You either have to be censored and PC and stay off the forums or keep it totally separate by way of an anonymous acct. Christ, the last thing I'd want when people google me is to see an embarrassingly long & useless debate such as the ongoing one with fleaman over what I thought would have been a simple thing!

I am faaaaaar from the only one to keep the two separate. The reality however is it makes no difference at all. It doesn't change anything about either of the two speakers talked about here, their build materials or specs, the importance of setting up monitors properly for reliable demos, etc.

[Fleaman]

Originally Posted by nms

If you look at what the drivers are rated at that should be indicative as well as well if you feel like putting 2 +2 together:

Tweeter: 25w Continuous/RMS
Low: 240w Continuous/RMS

lol.. most ridiculous debate ever I swear. Can we be done with this?

Yeah, if anyone can put 2+2 together and come up with 9, it would be you.

Originally Posted by nms

Perhaps you'd be so kind as to explain why in the isolated case of that spec sheet the continuous (RMS) spec isn't the lowest one?

Huh? You're the one making a big deal out of the 'order of specs' than the actual spec listings itself. Since you claim there is something to this order, then it is you that needs to post a link that confirms this suspicion of yours, and as usual you haven't and probably never will. You want us to just take your word for it.

Originally Posted by nms

It's actually regulated by the FTC that a manufacturer must list the continuous/RMS ratings. If a company only lists one figure, as in the case of most of the online retailers, by law it's supposed to be continuous/RMS. This is why we see them listed by the lower spec and not the middle. We're talking about a company who has had to do multiple revisions already on the Opals though and where it's not uncommon to hear about people who had to go through a pair or two due to faults.. so it shouldn't be shocking to see that convenient mislabeling.

Proof. That's what you're missing, plain and simple. It's called 'proof' and you don't have it, period. But by gawd, I'm sure you'll find a way to spin it some more....unless of course, you can post your proof?

[Fleaman]

Originally Posted by nms

Christ, the last thing I'd want when people google me is to see an embarrassingly long & useless debate such as the ongoing one with fleaman over what I thought would have been a simple thing!
.

Well, I for one am not at all embarrassed by anything I posted in this thread. You of course have made false claims about me, plagiarized me constantly, and I have continually called your bluff to quote me exactly to back up all (or any) of the things you've accused me of.

And guess what? You haven't been able to do it once, not even once.

So, I have nothing to be ashamed of....other than perhaps taking your bait way more than I probably should have....

[nms]

lol.. dude, you're delusional and will cling to anything rather than admit you're wrong. I've wasted way too much time as it is with you and it's pointless because it just goes in circles. You can talk til the cows come home about how I plagiarized(?) you, made false claims etc but it doesn't make it any more true outside of your head.

Here I'll try ONE last method.. let's slow it down..

Say you have a tweeter rated for 25w RMS..
Event provides 3 amp rating specs.. lowest happens to be 50w (hmm.. for a 25w tweeter, we could be onto something)
commonly the lowest spec is always RMS/continuous, next up is program/long term, and highest is peak/burst
RMS is the commonly (req'd by law in most places) listed amp power spec
Nearly every retailer lists the spec I mentioned as their primary listing spec for the Opals

Like I just finished saying, with any normal person this discussion would have been as simple as:

"well, in comparing basics of the 2 monitors the Twins have 3 drivers, 3 amps, with 150+150w to the sub & low-mid and 100w RMS to the tweeter... while the Opals have 2 drivers with 275w RMS to the lows and 50w RMS to the tweeters"

"yes, that looks to be correct according to the rated specs provided by these two well regarded companies"

~discussion moves on to other factors


I'm sorry but if you believe program/long term power is a lower spec than RMS or that 99% of dealers are wrongly listing the Opals by the wrong rating we really have nothing to talk about here man. We really don't. I regret having ever even mentioned something so simple and never expected such a collossal waste of time going in circles over it. Find someone else to waste time with. I'm done here!

[purplesky]

It seems like the last thing this thread needs is guys posting their work so people can rip them apart.

The way this thread is going it would not be fun for anyone.

[Fleaman]

Originally Posted by nms

lol.. dude, you're delusional and will cling to anything rather than admit you're wrong. I've wasted way too much time as it is with you and it's pointless because it just goes in circles. You can talk til the cows come home about how I plagiarized(?) you, made false claims etc but it doesn't make it any more true outside of your head.

And yet you still can't post a link.
And for your plagiarizing of me and false claims of me, shall I dig it up to remind you? I asked you many times to quote me exactly to prove your claim (of something I said), and as per nms, you never did. You accuse and plagiarize and you don't back it up.

Originally Posted by nms

I'm sorry but if you believe program/long term power is a lower spec than RMS or that 99% of dealers are wrongly listing the Opals by the wrong rating we really have nothing to talk about here man. We really don't. I regret having ever even mentioned something so simple and never expected such a collossal waste of time going in circles over it. Find someone else to waste time with. I'm done here!

I don't have a belief system of how amp ratings spec order should be listed, that's your accusation.
It's real simple: Prove that Event's 'continuous power' rating is an error. You're the one making the accusations, so the burden of proof is on you.

Still no link.
Still no proof.

[kasmira]

Alright alright guys.. settle down. Seriously. This is absurd. I think you guys may have some of the acoustics banter beaten.

No one needs to prove anything really. If one doesn't post proof, then what? Either way this goes you two will be arguing for pages on end.

The ONLY thing that either of you can legitimately prove once and for all the actual specs and clear up confusion regarding Event's specs is to E-mail or get in contact with Event.

This is my understanding: Event's website specs shows that Long Term Power was measured with both amps and speakers on. Continuous power was measured with a sine wave at 1kHz on the amps individually. Since we know RMS is often measured by a continuous sine wave at 1kHz, or by pink or white noise, we can conclude that Event's spec of continuous is in fact RMS. This is how we determine RMS on any amplifier. Event's spec shows 112w continuous for the tweeter.

All of the confusion stems from the long term power spec being under the RMS. Since long term is usually used in conjunction with RMS, it could be easy to assume that is the true RMS. However, since we know that Event tested the "long term power" with BOTH amps on, we can see this isn't your typical testing method. And, knowing that we're seeing BOTH amps on they won't be able to draw as much continuous current from the same source at the same time. This means that their long term measurement should in fact have a lower number than RMS. And even if you don't believe that - it is still not your typical testing scenario so that number (the lowest number) should be disregarded in general.

tl;dr - Event's spec lists Long Term Power as both amps on. They cannot pull enough current at the same time to give both amps their actual individual RMS ratings. They also list the RMS (continuous in this scenario) as 112w for the tweeter.

I believe you are wrong nms, but believe as you will. I am only interpreting the data I see. The only real way for any of us to know is to contact Event. I'm actually thrilled they give us that Long Term Power spec as it lists the entire RMS for amps running parallel, which I've never seen another manufacturer list.

Sent from my Nexus S 4G using Gearslutz App

[nms]

You realize your entire post hinges on whether or not they actually posted their info correctly in that spot on their site right?

By law the FTC requires that any amplifiers sold in the USA have their power ratings advertised as continuous/RMS power. Manufacturers are free to advertise additional measurements, but continuous is not optional. If you go to sweetwater or most online retailers what's the number you see them listed at? The one rating they're required by law to state.

The idea of your amp's strength being reduced in half due to both amps running at once is not expected behavior in any good design. This is afterall how they'll be running in the real world. They don't state that long term power is measured with a continuous sine, just that low and highs are tested simultaneously. Can anyone think of a measurement that involves testing low & highs simultaneously, is missing from the sheet (not really) and normally resides in between continuous & peak?

[kasmira]

Originally Posted by nms

You realize your entire post hinges on whether or not they actually posted their info correctly in that spot on their site right?

You realize that any spec by any manufacturer ever to exist hinges on whether or not they actually post the correct info about their product, right?

You realize that your entire post hinges on the manufacturer LYING about their data?!?!

Originally Posted by nms

By law the FTC requires that any amplifiers sold in the USA have their power ratings advertised as continuous/RMS power. Manufacturers are free to advertise additional measurements, but continuous is not optional.

Hence why they show Long Term Power, Continuous, and Peak.

Originally Posted by nms

If you go to sweetwater or most online retailers what's the number you see them listed at? The one rating they're required by law to state.

This is an assumption. They aren't required to state the exact number, they are only not allowed to post above that. It is odd, but I'm sure most retailers just grab the info straight from the site, and just as you did - looked at the smallest number as the RMS.

Clearly, Long Term Power is measured with BOTH speakers on, and we are not sure what they measured it with. This measurement should be completely discarded when comparing amps.

Originally Posted by nms

The idea of your amp's strength being reduced in half due to both amps running at once is not expected behavior in any good design.

Says who? In fact, what other speaker manufacturer actually gives you this data? They do not. You are clearly trying to make Opal look like a bad speaker with this comment, why?

Originally Posted by nms

Can anyone think of a measurement that involves testing low & highs simultaneously, is missing from the sheet (not really) and normally resides in between continuous & peak?

Fleaman already answered this, and you insist on proving him wrong (which he is not).

First off, program power has nothing to do with "lows & highs" playing at the same time. Program power is a speaker spec. Not an amp spec. Considering that the Event's EX8 and the tweeter are in fact separate speakers, they in fact have separate power handling specs - including "Program Power". They actually GIVE you the data you are looking for! Its on the spec sheet! On top of that, program power is not in any way shape or form a regulatory testing scenario. There isn't specific laid out regulated ways to test program. Again, this measurement should be thrown out when comparing amps. It isn't an amp spec!!

The facts as I see it are very clearly laid out in the spec sheets by Event, and your entire argument rests on the manufacturer lying about their data. I just did at least an hour of searching on Google, while typing this, about Program Power and amplifier ratings. Simply put, look it up yourself. Program power is a speaker spec. I'm sure you may be able to find the number on one or two amps, but every single site I found referenced Program Power in terms of speakers, even if the page was about amplifiers. This is a senseless debate. I said what I thought needed to be said. I'm done here, and won't be coming back to this thread. If you for some odd reason absolutely need a reply, please PM me, as all of this information has been repeated in this thread for pages.

If you want to ask Event if they are lying about their data, you can use this form here: http://www.eventelectronics.com/support.php - there is also a phone number on the right you can call. I'm sure they will be glad to clear up your misinterpretations of their data.

[goldencd]

Nms. Please give it a rest. Your constant need to prove yourself right no matter what is really annoying. I have given up trying to sort through your logic and use of semantics. I wish someone from event would post on here just to stop you from posting again.... But you would argue with them as well. Probably about the size of their font negating their argument or something equally stupid. Get some self awareness.

I can't be the only one who feels this way. Can I? Maybe everyone else is scared to post their thoughts since their accounts aren't anonymous. :-/

[Andy_bt]

Originally Posted by goldencd

Nms. Please give it a rest. Your constant need to prove yourself right no matter what is really annoying. I have given up trying to sort through your logic and use of semantics. I wish someone from event would post on here just to stop you from posting again.... But you would argue with them as well. Probably about the size of their font negating their argument or something equally stupid. Get some self awareness.

I can't be the only one who feels this way. Can I? Maybe everyone else is scared to post their thoughts since their accounts aren't anonymous. :-/

I'd rather listen to Bieber's anthology until the end of days than start arguing with NMS on an internet open forum.
A.

[nms]

Oh give it a rest GoldenCd. Seriously. If nothing seems off to you about this power rating discrepancy that has caused pages of useless debate you must be newer than I thought or not too quick to catch on. Funny comment about my posting from an anonymous account. Perhaps if your professional life involved leaving your studio to tour and play shows you might understand the reason for minding your PR. This thread is a toilet and with nearly 440 posts any of the top 4 posters should feel a bit ashamed of the time wasted here.. myself included.

Originally Posted by kasmira

You realize that your entire post hinges on the manufacturer LYING about their data?!?!

Lying? Who said that? I said it looks to be mixed up. This is a company who doesn't have the best track record for getting stuff right the first time so it's not that shocking.

Hence why they show Long Term Power, Continuous, and Peak.

We're talking about one place on their website vs nearly every online dealer out there that lists only the lower spec. What kind of poorly run company would allow for nearly ever dealer out there to list their monitors with the wrong power specs totally underselling their product? Do you know what a colossal fail that would be? Grab a brain guys. Does a company pair a 25w tweeter with a 50w amp or a 112w amp?

Hell, for arguments' sake why don't I just side with you with the amplifier power idea. Sounds good to me. We can go by the rating of the drivers themselves which list RMS, program, & peak in the normal order with no discrepancy.

So the Opals have a 25w tweeter with 240w low-mid. Alright.

[goldencd]

Originally Posted by nms

Oh give it a rest GoldenCd. Seriously. If nothing seems off to you about this power rating discrepancy that has caused pages of useless debate you must be newer than I thought or not too quick to catch on. Funny comment about my posting from an anonymous account. Perhaps if your professional life involved leaving your studio to tour and play shows you might understand the reason for minding your PR.

Clearly you know nothing of my career. I am willing to bet you will have the last word or die trying. I bet your PR is as impressive as your total knowledge of all that is. Fictional and in the ether.

Peace out Opal, Focal owners and onlookers. Sorry for feeding the monkey.

[warhead]

I suggest we change the topic to sushi, but you're only allowed to answer yes or no if you enjoy eating it.

Yes.

War

[nms]

Originally Posted by goldencd

I bet you PR is as impressive as your total knowledge of all that is. Fictional and in the ether.

Well that was certainly confusing.

My bad, I should have just conceded about the amp power long ago regardless of what it really is because the power rating for the drivers has no such discrepancy. Who knows though, that could have derailed the thread just as much. Event should get their shit together and clear up the discrepancy.

[hasbeen]

Originally Posted by nms

Well that was certainly confusing.

You confused???

This is your best post yet!

[hasbeen]

Originally Posted by nms

Well that was certainly confusing.

My bad, I should have just conceded about the amp power long ago regardless of what it really is because the power rating for the drivers has no such discrepancy. Who knows though, that could have derailed the thread just as much. Event should get their shit together and clear up the discrepancy.

Just wanted to quote you after you added all the dialogue since the last time I quoted you.

You keep going back and editing your posts after the fact,

[nms]

Originally Posted by hasbeen

Just wanted to quote you after you added all the dialogue since the last time I quoted you.

You keep going back and editing your posts after the fact,

Yes, we have an edit button to keep things tidy instead of posting a new post for every thought. You quoted the rest of that post.. were you going anywhere there or just wanted to add another post to counter my having saved one? lol

Hell, we can say the tweeters have a seven thousand watt amp if it makes anyone feel better. It's still a 25w tweeter which no one is debating.

I suppose it's fitting for the theme of this thread.. everything needing to be dragged out for no good reason.
This must be a GS record for amount of time wasted debating specs.

[hasbeen]

Originally Posted by nms

Yes, we have an edit button to keep things tidy instead of posting a new post for every thought. You quoted the second half of that post.. were you going anywhere there or just wanted to add another post to counter my having saved one? lol

I suppose it's fitting for the theme of this thread.. everything needing to be dragged out for no good reason.

There was no second half to that post until you went back and added it. After the fact.


It's like double dipping a chip.