Slinkylinks
Member
Righto, time for a bit of a rant I think.
I dont like Sony, you might say that I hate Sony, but I have one of their headunits, and I've owned many pieces of their equipment, multipul XM-222 power amps (they always seem to break and need fixing) and their speakers are pretty crappy.
I see these pentagonal subs flooding onto the market in NZ for very cheap. As far as I'm concerned they sound pretty damn bad. Does anyone actually know what Sony were trying to acheive by giving their subs a smaller cone area and some nice stress points requiring the surrounds to be butched out at the corners, making the cone heavier and subsequently making the diver less efficient? I've just been wondering it for a long time...
oh, and does anyone actually like Sony?
I mean, theres only so much silver and red someone can have in a car, right?
Matt
I dont like Sony, you might say that I hate Sony, but I have one of their headunits, and I've owned many pieces of their equipment, multipul XM-222 power amps (they always seem to break and need fixing) and their speakers are pretty crappy.
I see these pentagonal subs flooding onto the market in NZ for very cheap. As far as I'm concerned they sound pretty damn bad. Does anyone actually know what Sony were trying to acheive by giving their subs a smaller cone area and some nice stress points requiring the surrounds to be butched out at the corners, making the cone heavier and subsequently making the diver less efficient? I've just been wondering it for a long time...
oh, and does anyone actually like Sony?
I mean, theres only so much silver and red someone can have in a car, right?
Matt