Print Page | Close Window

Are Speaker Manufacturers just "optimistic" ?

Printed From: Speakerplans.com
Category: General
Forum Name: General Forum
Forum Description: Open Discussion / Questions
URL: https://forum.speakerplans.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=99010
Printed Date: 29 March 2024 at 1:20pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.06 - https://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Are Speaker Manufacturers just "optimistic" ?
Posted By: dekra54
Subject: Are Speaker Manufacturers just "optimistic" ?
Date Posted: 09 August 2017 at 6:34pm
Good Evening :)

I'm playing with Hornresp/WinISD for the last few weeks and simming numerous drivers and cab types. And from the beginning i wondered how the manufacturers are able to make cabs with those high specs for example a single 15" with 40-330 at 135db max. . Do they have some black magic drivers? Or are the just very optimistic( lyingGeek ) in interpreting the plots ? ( which are seldom availaible ... ).

Greetings from a curious beginer

Dennis


PS.: I know you can you can sim everything to death but its quite fun and you don't have to spend much money ;) )





Replies:
Posted By: Pasi
Date Posted: 09 August 2017 at 7:13pm
Everybody lies.

- Dr. House


Posted By: Elliot Thompson
Date Posted: 09 August 2017 at 8:16pm
Lots of manufactures use peak figures in order to catch those solely driven by SPL. There are also processing methods that limits the bandwidth for the sake of more SPL. 

Best Regards,


-------------
Elliot Thompson


Posted By: Hemisphere
Date Posted: 09 August 2017 at 8:18pm
Which 15" speaker are you talking about? It's not impossible to achieve 135dB at 1 metre with a 15" driver, depending on the loading, but even with a reflex enclosure it's not entirely out of the question.

I just simmed a PD155.N01 in a 100 litre reflex cabinet tuned to 45Hz. With 2800w (rated max input) it's 134dB at 175Hz, but the WinISD sims are a bit lower than the manufacturer's response plots, and at 175Hz it can probably take a bit more than 2800w anyway, so it will definitely achieve 135dB or even more. (Edit: That's with approx -10dB at 40Hz by the way, so it would just barely fit the specification you mentioned)

But that's unusual for a 1x15 reflex.

I find it's best to assume the manufacturer is being 'creatively honest', by which I mean they'll have found a metric by which their claims actually stand up to scrutiny, but the chances that this metric will be intuitive or relevant to the customer are very low

The worst offender being 'peak musical power output' (PMPO), which has been steadily phased out from marketing materials, although LG are regularly releasing systems with approximately this specification attached, which to the best of my understanding means the absolute maximum theoretical instantaneous power flow that could be driven through an amplifier, for any period of time (1ms or whatever) in a controlled test bench environment. In reality the speaker will never drive that much power, and people publishing  PMPO generally don't publish any dB ratings at all.

Beneath that, and much more common, you'll have manufacturers measuring the maximum peak SPL  measurement with white noise or music program. So a design may be 95dB average efficiency across almost the entire range, but have an anomalous spike (as a product of the driver, or the tuning, or both) of 100 or 102dB sensitivity, and it's that sharp spike that gets recorded for the specifications.

There are a few manufacturers with optimistic claims which also publish purported response plots, Mackie for example. You can often see in their published plots that there's a visible peak of 3-5dB, and that's the figure they reference. 


Posted By: dekra54
Date Posted: 09 August 2017 at 8:44pm
First thanks for your detailed reply :)

As far as i remember it was a 15" from EV in a bandpass enclosure but dont quote me on the exact model.

So they are doing it like the internet providers which are telling you up to 50mbi/s but you're getting maybe 16... ( Quite common here in germany). But what you are saying confirms my assumtion and i don't have to worry if my design just goes for example from 45-150 at -3 with a theoretical max db of 131 and still keeping the driver in the "save" xmax. Which leads me to a question regarding your design with the 155N01. How do you achieve a power handling of 2800W in that kind of frequency range without ripping the driver ? In my designs i have always problems to stay in a safe range of xlim/mech Confused




Posted By: Hemisphere
Date Posted: 09 August 2017 at 9:01pm
The PD155.N01 is an exceptional driver. It has 10.5mm xmax and it takes a lot of power to get it moving. Oversize magnet, 5" voicecoil. It's a 15" neo but it still weighs 9.5kg. If it was a ferrite or ceramic driver it could be double that.


Posted By: dekra54
Date Posted: 09 August 2017 at 9:09pm
Yes i wanted to buy this one for exactly the reasons you mentioned but unfortunately it wasn' tavailable at the time i needed them ( now it's discontinued Shocked ) and instead i bought the 1550 (which i think is the ferrite version but with a lower xmax of 8.2)


Posted By: Hemisphere
Date Posted: 09 August 2017 at 9:22pm
I can't believe it's discontinued either. Bluearan's website suggests they can still get it on order though.

It's confirmation if ever you needed it, that people just don't recognise quality when they see it. 

It wasn't cheap - about 300 GBP, but with amp prices dropping as fast as they are (iNuke 6000W amp for 350 Euros), you can use a driver like that to get literally double the output of a cheaper driver.

An American bloke at the diyaudio forum was recommending a Faital Pro 15FH500 for compact sub applications the other day, but per US prices it's only about $100 cheaper than the PD155.N01. So you could pay $580 plus 2x enclosure costs, or $390 + 1x enclosure material/assembly costs, and get approximately the same result (actually 1x PD at max input = +1.5dB of 2x Faital) . The PD would probably sound better too.


Posted By: dekra54
Date Posted: 09 August 2017 at 9:28pm
Maybe they are collecting orders to get the ~50 MOQ for a custom order?
I just compared the 1550 and 155N01 and there the same exept (at least if I am not mistaken) for the xmax and weight of course.


Posted By: Hemisphere
Date Posted: 09 August 2017 at 9:48pm
they can't be the same driver. The N01 has a 5" voice coil. 1550 is 4". Also, if it's 12.8kg ceramic and 9.5kg neo, it suggests a stronger magnet on the neo. The only other thing that could make up significant weight is the frame, but aluminium just isn't that heavy.

Edit: Plus anyway the frames, at least, look almost identical.


Posted By: dekra54
Date Posted: 09 August 2017 at 9:53pm
Doh' Youre right.  accidently had two tabs with the PD1550 and looked at these LOL better go to bed now....


Posted By: Mircea Bartic
Date Posted: 10 August 2017 at 11:44am
I can confirm. Almost everybody lies.

As a manufacturer, it's even easier to lie without being caught when you sell Active speakers.

This phenomenon is starting to appear with the raw speaker manufacturers. Cough ,Eminence,  cough , BMS, Cough, etc. LOL


-------------
general manager & head designer at nexus-acoustics research
http://www.facebook.com/nexus.acoustics.research" rel="nofollow - http://www.facebook.com/nexus.acoustics.research

Ex Nexus_3


Posted By: Hemisphere
Date Posted: 10 August 2017 at 12:09pm
It seems like it wouldn't be unreasonable to establish a reliable independent standard. 

You know, like how the world sets it's watches to the clock in Greenwich.

If you had one room set up with one set of accurate measurement equipment and a specific testing regimen which never changes, then manufacturers could send a sample unit there for testing and have their products specifications authenticated, as a paid service like the companies that rate the condition of baseball cards.

The process used should be as conservative as possible, so anyone who used it would be publishing implausibly low specifications for their products. Averaged SPL across the entire working range (from the -3dB or even -10dB point), rather than peak would already put the numbers several dB down, especially with subs, immediately indicating a clear distinction in methods. You'd only need a handful of big names to be on board with the program to give the inflated numbers and methods currently favoured a tinge of dishonesty.

If a trader of baseball cards started to grade their cards with an inhouse grading system, those cards would certainly be worth less than the ones that were independently graded, so there's a clear value offered to manufacturers who don't need to rely on inflated numbers to sell their products.

Most people understand the meaning of words like RMS, AES. Another acronym that sits next to SPL measurements on spec sheets to indicate the methods used would quickly be recognised and it's meaning understood. It's not like there would be much to understand - Understanding the method is useful, but the exact method used is much less important than the uniformity of the method.


Posted By: gen0me
Date Posted: 10 August 2017 at 12:16pm
And what with small manufactures that cant afford it?
They are less likely to lie right(no marketing division)?


Posted By: Hemisphere
Date Posted: 10 August 2017 at 12:22pm
How much could it cost? 

I mean, you've got one space, one set of measurement equipment always on and always following the exact same procedures. You could line up a 100 boxes for measurement and do them all in a day no problem. If it was a business dedicated to doing that, and only that, and it was widely used enough to be viable, the cost of service would be negligible.

There are other obvious pitfalls though. I mean, if manufacturers are really intent on being unscrupulous they could send a non-representative unit for testing or water down the design somewhere down the line and not have it retested. 

To be a little more scientific you might need to test 5 or 10 units and take an average and that could put costs up. That might be another trick used to inflate specs (measure an anomalous unit).


Posted By: MPASOUND
Date Posted: 10 August 2017 at 12:51pm
Originally posted by Mircea Bartic Mircea Bartic wrote:

I can confirm. Almost everybody lies.

This phenomenon is starting to appear with the raw speaker manufacturers. Cough ,Eminence,  cough , BMS, Cough, etc. LOL

What figures are BMS bending? They're one of the few who don't exaggerate x-max (or didn't anyway!)




-------------
It's just bits of paper flapping about in a box.


Posted By: Mircea Bartic
Date Posted: 10 August 2017 at 1:00pm
driver sensitivity


-------------
general manager & head designer at nexus-acoustics research
http://www.facebook.com/nexus.acoustics.research" rel="nofollow - http://www.facebook.com/nexus.acoustics.research

Ex Nexus_3


Posted By: gen0me
Date Posted: 10 August 2017 at 2:45pm
Originally posted by Hemisphere Hemisphere wrote:

How much could it cost? 

Same as with the ISO. It is exclusive product that everyone wants. And iso is supposed to me a norm

Originally posted by MPASOUND MPASOUND wrote:

What figures are BMS bending? They're one of the few who don't exaggerate x-max (or didn't.

Right they give old school mathematical xmax (Hvc-Hgap)/2

Btw if you wont catch producents on it they wont change. Even if you write mail they dont bother. Its money for them. Way of making buisness nowdays. It is much easier to lie parameters for sale. Thats how world is constructed. It would be easier if they would be publicly humiliated. Like on a forum for example


Posted By: Hemisphere
Date Posted: 10 August 2017 at 3:42pm
Quote It would be easier if they would be publicly humiliated. Like on a forum for example

Well yes that's always something I guess. 70's Trousers got a fair dose of that and it looks like they've sidelined their PA business for a headphone and earplug business (harder to accurately scrutinise what's really going on inside a pair of earbuds I suppose)

But that was really clear cut bullshit artistry. What I find harder is the borderline cases, especially when a business is producing a product to a high standard, or representing something I otherwise support and respect. To pull them down over a trivial exaggeration seems a bit petty then. 

Honestly, as it goes, I'd rather just take the exaggerated numbers at face value, and use that as a target to shoot for. If a manufacturer is claiming 135dB when it's actually 130, and their box is a certain size, weight, price, etc, then you've got a very solid target to shoot for - to produce something that matches or beats their specifications, but does it without exaggeration, and above that does it in a way that wouldn't need to inflate it's specifications to remain the clear choice, and have some other things about it which makes it impractical to clone without clearly being an inferior copy.

It's a high bar to set but it's definitely possible to reach, and it helps you to rack over all the possible ways to add value to a product. If you've got to compete against something which is not credible, then you'll have to produce something incredible.


Posted By: 4D
Date Posted: 10 August 2017 at 4:09pm

Did anyone notice 70's raised just under 500k with the kickstarter.ConfusedConfusedConfusedConfusedConfusedConfusedConfusedConfused

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/584645150/isolate-switch-off-your-ears" rel="nofollow - https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/584645150/isolate-switch-off-your-ears


-------------
DMZ. "The bass was intense. Girls were literally running up to stand next to the subs"


Posted By: Hemisphere
Date Posted: 10 August 2017 at 4:24pm
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/sound-heroes-bluetooth-speaker-of-the-future-music#/" rel="nofollow - https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/sound-heroes-bluetooth-speaker-of-the-future-music#/


Another crowdfunder that raised half a million.



Posted By: gen0me
Date Posted: 10 August 2017 at 4:42pm
Titanium is the key part of those ear plugs...


Posted By: Hemisphere
Date Posted: 10 August 2017 at 4:52pm
So? That's their USP. Otherwise known as 'titplugs'. 


Posted By: Racks&Stacks
Date Posted: 10 August 2017 at 5:55pm
Originally posted by Mircea Bartic Mircea Bartic wrote:

I can confirm. Almost everybody lies.

As a manufacturer, it's even easier to lie without being caught when you sell Active speakers.

This phenomenon is starting to appear with the raw speaker manufacturers. Cough ,Eminence,  cough , BMS, Cough, etc. LOL

It might be easy enough to defraud someone buying only a couple units, but methinks that any manufacturer buying pallets and pallets of raw drivers would have enough muscle for a serious legal fight.

Do you have evidence or is this just libel on your part?


Posted By: Racks&Stacks
Date Posted: 10 August 2017 at 5:56pm
Originally posted by Mircea Bartic Mircea Bartic wrote:

driver sensitivity

bms fudges their driver sensitivity ratings?


Posted By: Timebomb
Date Posted: 10 August 2017 at 6:30pm
They use peak sensitivity rather than average across bandwidth,  its kind of a moot point imo as pretty much everyone else does the same with compression drivers,  ive not tested anything that has better sensitivity than the BMS compression drivers though, have you Mircea?   Or are you referring to 40x20 horns /118dB?  

-------------
James Secker          facebook.com/soundgearuk
James@soundgear.co.uk               www.soundgear.co.uk


Posted By: madboffin
Date Posted: 10 August 2017 at 6:57pm
Specifications in general have always been a minefield, and manufacturers have always fudged their sensitivity figures.

Back in the day it was common practice to quote a 12" or 15" speaker's sensitivity as the level at the narrow peak in the on axis hi-mid response that most speakers had. Not in the range over which the speaker would normally be used. This meant the figures were seriously dodgy.

Even when you are being honest, sensitivity figures are a bit tricky as the measurements are dependent on the system impedance, which of course can vary a lot with frequency. Amplifiers are constant voltage devices, so how do you know if the driver is really being fed with 1Watt? Of course you don't.

JBL used to sell identical drive units into the domestic (horn loaded hi-fi) and professional markets, under different part numbers. One would be specified as 16 ohm and the other as 8 ohm. You could reasonably claim either if the actual impedance on a horn was, say, around 12 ohms on average. But one would give a better sensitivity rating than the other. These were world-leading, industry standard drive units from one of the most reputable manufacturers of the day, but the specs were still, er, adjusted, to fit the market...

--------

Long time ago, I did a lot of the development work on what became a major, and very well regarded, touring loudspeaker system. It was important that the end users were able to work out how many drive units or modules they could run in parallel on their amplifier channels, bearing in mind that these were being used in full size festival rigs and amplifier power wasn't so cheap as it is nowadays. So we specified the impedance of each unit (which included the driver on its horn, plus in some cases a protection and matching network) as the average over its recommended active crossover range, with the result that none of them were simple 4, 8, or 16 ohm ratings.
But having done that, we then had to quote sensitivity figures. For consistency these had to be measured at the voltage that would provide 1 Watt into the declared impedance. In engineering terms I'm certain that this was the correct, and most accurate,  thing to do. But it meant the sensitivity figures couldn't be compared with anyone else's.

The current standard is to always declare the impedance as one of the standard nominal ratings (4, 8, 16) and measure the sensitivity at the drive voltage which would give 1W at that impedance. But a single sensitivity figure is always misleading - you really need to see the frequency response curve to be sure the figure hasn't been picked at the frequency where the driver happens to have a 3dB bump in the curve...



Posted By: Ricci
Date Posted: 10 August 2017 at 9:20pm
Some of the mfg's are being VERY creative with their specifications. Technically some of them are not lies but the details of how the specs are arrived at are often very revealing and absolutely required to understand what is going on.
 
Max SPL specs are notoriously exaggerated and suspect.
Typical marketing would do things like:
1.) Spec the max SPL from the highest peak in the frequency response. For a sub this may not even be in a bandwidth it ever gets used in, like 250Hz. 
2.) Instead of measuring the actual output from the speaker just calculate it. After all there is no chance for output compression or damage resulting from a calculation. Wink
3.) Use the maximum peak recommended power input from the spec sheet... Maybe we can just inflate that peak power handling number a bit too...5kW even it is.
4.) Now we could spec it as 1m full space or 2 meter half space, or we could spec it as 1m half space and get an extra 6dB on the spec sheet. That extra 6dB on the spec sheet sounds good.
5.) For the final cherry on top use the peak sound pressure calculated rather than the usual rms calculation, that would be used for say a frequency response graph, sensitivity measurement, modeling software, etc...and that gives yet another 3dB.
 
And there you have it a 12" 2-way that has a max SPL rating of 137dB.
 
I've had this same type of discussion with a few different people lately.
Max SPL must be measured. It should be done outdoors in a ground plane half space setting. SPL should not be reported as "peak" just to get an extra 3dB on a sheet. It should be reported at 2m half space which is equivalent to a 1m anechoic or full space condition. The frequency that the SPL was measured at must be reported. The amplifier power available must not exceed the recommended amount of the mfg or the internal amplifier if an active unit. Total harmonic distortion percentage during the recorded max SPL should also be reported. The signal must be standardized as well. This is easily accomplished using the Hann shaped, 1/3rd octave spaced, 6.5 cycle, distortion limited, tone bursts. Like employed by Don Keele back in the day and popularized for CEA-2010 subwoofer testing. This is the absolute bare minimum required in my opinion.
 
Other specs such as frequency response and sensitivity need to be just as detailed and thorough to have any meaning. They require a response or impedance graph for a start.
Originally posted by Hemisphere Hemisphere wrote:

How much could it cost? 

I mean, you've got one space, one set of measurement equipment always on and always following the exact same procedures. You could line up a 100 boxes for measurement and do them all in a day no problem. If it was a business dedicated to doing that, and only that, and it was widely used enough to be viable, the cost of service would be negligible.
 
It's not that quick or easy trust me. It's a LOT of work.


Posted By: levyte357-
Date Posted: 10 August 2017 at 9:28pm
Originally posted by Mircea Bartic Mircea Bartic wrote:

driver sensitivity


Not only BMS either...

Too tired of saying, what I've found thru testing....


-------------
Global Depopulation - Alive and Killing.


Posted By: DMorison
Date Posted: 11 August 2017 at 1:28pm
Originally posted by madboffin madboffin wrote:


--------

Long time ago, I did a lot of the development work on what became a major, and very well regarded, touring loudspeaker system. It was important that the end users were able to work out how many drive units or modules they could run in parallel on their amplifier channels, bearing in mind that these were being used in full size festival rigs and amplifier power wasn't so cheap as it is nowadays. So we specified the impedance of each unit (which included the driver on its horn, plus in some cases a protection and matching network) as the average over its recommended active crossover range, with the result that none of them were simple 4, 8, or 16 ohm ratings.
But having done that, we then had to quote sensitivity figures. For consistency these had to be measured at the voltage that would provide 1 Watt into the declared impedance. In engineering terms I'm certain that this was the correct, and most accurate,  thing to do. But it meant the sensitivity figures couldn't be compared with anyone else's.


Ivan Beaver of Danley has posted several times about finding exactly the same issues.
Apparently they used to quote one of their boxes as 6Ω, being the most accurate representation of its impedance.
But, they were constantly plagued with "how do I find an amp that can drive 6Ω" type questions.
Their solution - change the spec sheet to say 4Ω.
No stupid questions any more, they still show the Impedance curve on the spec sheet for anyone who really wants to check it for themselves, but anyone who just wants the "simple number" gets told a number that will result in them not overloading their amp by paralleling too many boxes.



Posted By: Racks&Stacks
Date Posted: 11 August 2017 at 3:18pm
Wait, are we discussing driver or cabinet specs?


Posted By: Hemisphere
Date Posted: 11 August 2017 at 3:24pm
Yes.


Posted By: Hemisphere
Date Posted: 11 August 2017 at 3:37pm
Originally posted by Ricci Ricci wrote:

It's not that quick or easy trust me. It's a LOT of work.
Do you not think it would be possible to get a production line set up for a basic standardised measurement of a few specifications people seem most concerned about, like SPL and frequency response?

So long as the results are consistent and representative, and could be reliably used to compare one product with another, are the merits of the specific methods used that important? Kind of a McDonald's approach to measurements. Low quality but high consistency and fast delivery.


Posted By: Ricci
Date Posted: 11 August 2017 at 8:34pm
Originally posted by Hemisphere Hemisphere wrote:

Originally posted by Ricci Ricci wrote:

It's not that quick or easy trust me. It's a LOT of work.
Do you not think it would be possible to get a production line set up for a basic standardised measurement of a few specifications people seem most concerned about, like SPL and frequency response?

So long as the results are consistent and representative, and could be reliably used to compare one product with another, are the merits of the specific methods used that important? Kind of a McDonald's approach to measurements. Low quality but high consistency and fast delivery.
 
Sure...I do it all the time. I think you're underestimating the amount of time needed though. About 6 is my record for # of speakers tested in one day. That was about 16hrs including setup and tear down.
Frequency response and / or sensitivity are quick and easy once the setup is assembled and calibrated. Max SPL is much more involved and time consuming especially if it is a passive cab. The thing is you need the whole array of measurements, not just one or two. Personally I need to get all of the data collected at the time the equipment is setup, not just max SPL or voltage sensitivity, so it ends up taking a lot of time for each system. Typically around 2hrs per cab.
 
In my opinion the following group of measurements provide a good characterization of the behavior of a speaker. This is exactly what I do, but of course I'm a bit of a measurement junkie. I'd expect that some manufacturers do similar, if somewhat different, testing to verify and prove out a design. Others likely do much much less.
 
Impedance curve (for passive cabs)
Voltage sensitivity (for passive cabs)
On axis frequency response
Polar data (Not required for subs)
Time domain response / group delay / decay plot
Output compression plots at increasing drive level ( For subs)
Distortion data
Short term maximum SPL at each 1/3rd octave band down to at least the -10dB extension rating of the speaker.
 
Raw speaker driver ratings are also a problem at times. The usual problem specs are xmax, power handling and sensitivity. Car audio brands are the worst as a whole. I swear their power handling specs are often just made up completely. Thankfully there is a CEA-2031 spec covering mobile audio that is attempting to bring some reality into the market.
 
 
 
 
 


Posted By: VECTORDJ
Date Posted: 11 August 2017 at 9:32pm
Liars. Maybe we should file a class action suit against the companies that lie on their specs. Pro audio is starting to look like the car audio fools. I have had many young car stereo customers tell me their 10 or 12 inch sealed box woofer puts out 168 to 170 dB.


Posted By: Hemisphere
Date Posted: 11 August 2017 at 11:00pm
Krakatoa would be a great name for a car audio manufacturer.


Posted By: _djk_
Date Posted: 12 August 2017 at 10:34pm


-------------
djk


Posted By: Hemisphere
Date Posted: 12 August 2017 at 11:00pm
I think that's just to help reinforce the branding with crack addict stereo thieves. 'Kraco! Guaranteed to pawn for at least the price of your next rock!'


Posted By: MattStolton
Date Posted: 14 August 2017 at 5:59pm
Even if there was a series of "independent" test houses, deemed to be virtuous and proper, eventually, after working for a manufacturer for a few years, they would get a phone call from manufacturer's marketing dept.:

"Hi Bob. These test results. Look a bit weak. Any danger of just improving them a bit. If you do, I will carry on sending my stuff to you, and paying your invoices. If not, A.N. Other test house has said they will test my stuff for 10% less than you charge, and report back the specs I want...."

There already are test centres for BS5839pt8/EN54-24 compliance. So if your Penton or Toa, and you want to certify your speaker as VA compliant (which is mostly physical, i.e. thermal fuse, ceramic connector block, etc) you can, but they also give enough acoustic data to give meaningful EASE type data. So it does exist, but costs a fortune.

When doing VA, generally part of the contract talks about meeting 0.5 or 0.6 or higher RASTI or STI, if the client reckons it sounds crap, you get someone in to test system to get a test measurement, and if you fail, you pay for testing, and doing whatever it takes to meet STI, and subsequent remeasure! So accurate speaker data, in the 100V line VA market is already standard, for EN54 compliant systems.

But, and it is a big but (and I cannot lie...) VA is life critical. And the systems are big and expensive. So BS is not accepted. Sticking a couple of Eons on sticks is not life critical. So the BS that all other manufacturers spout is marketing "re-interpretation" of measurements to help shift boxes.

Thankfully, good manufacturers will balance marketing BS with risk to reputation. Most multi $XXXXX boxes/systems will come with some sort of modelling data, and easy enough to measure result. If the two don't match up, someone pays. At the arse end of the market, what DJ is going to measure his boxes output in any meaningful way, against claim by manufacturers - they will either be loud enough or not. So manufacturers get away with it, especially to those who see big numbers (PMPO, Peak SPL or whatever) and hand over money accordingly.

The problem is, most get away with it, as we don't measure, and we suffer a touch of Emporer's new clothes syndrome.


-------------
Matt Stolton - Technical Director (!!!) - http://www.wildingsound.co.uk" rel="nofollow - Wilding Sound Ltd
"Sparkius metiretur vestra" - "Meter Your Mains"


Posted By: Racks&Stacks
Date Posted: 14 August 2017 at 6:25pm
Originally posted by MattStolton MattStolton wrote:

Even if there was a series of "independent" test houses, deemed to be virtuous and proper, eventually, after working for a manufacturer for a few years, they would get a phone call from manufacturer's marketing dept.:

The problem is, most get away with it, as we don't measure, and we suffer a touch of Emporer's new clothes syndrome.

Pat Brown in the US is at least one of the credible speaker testers.  If he or any other were to be willing to fudge the results so that some company with money to throw around would get better results, his client list would soon shrink when it would be realized that they are wasting their time with him.  Production Partner is at least one trade magazine which publishes their own test results of various products, sometimes deviating quite a bit from manufacturers claimed specs

Some brands get away with it, because their name alone is enough to win a bid, or because they almost give away systems to certain operators and those towards the bottom of the market want to compete and get the same caliber of acts to play on them


Posted By: Hemisphere
Date Posted: 14 August 2017 at 6:34pm
Quote Sticking a couple of Eons on sticks is not life critical
If you expect a couple of Eons to be on sticks and there aren't any then it's pretty damn close though.



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.06 - https://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2023 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net