Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
recommendations about speakers...
Good evening to all, I just bought form a friend of mine a Sony receiver-mp3 CDX-MP30 with a "Maximum Power Output 52 Watts x 4" and "Continuous Power 23 Watts x 4" and I was wondering what kind of speakers would be a purrfect match, since I don't have a clue about car audio. You know, I would like to know the specifications of some coaxial speakers (Maximum power, Nominal input power, etc) which might sound good (in general terms) in combination with the above mentioned receiver, and without the need of an aditional amp nor subwoofer. Just the perfect speakers for it. thanx P.S. oh!, and no bigger than 17 cm!, don't got room for anything bigger than that ;-) andrew |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Look for speakers that have a high sensitivity if your going to power
them by your receiver. 91dba and up. But go listen to some. What someone likes you may hate. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Look for speakers that have a high sensitivity if your going to power
them by your receiver. 91dba and up. But go listen to some. What someone likes you may hate. This is excellent advice. Really the only specification that should matter to you is sensitivity. The higher the better. And when you go to listen to speakers, make sure they are being driven by a receiver similar to yours, NOT AN AMPLIFIER. This would give you a false impression of how they would sound in your car. And always try to remember that speakers are the most important component in any system because they will effect sound quality (SQ) more than any other. If you are going to splurge on anything, splurge on speakers. Your ears will thank you. MOSFET |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
This is excellent advice. Really the only specification that should
matter to you is sensitivity. The higher the better. And when you go to listen to speakers, make sure they are being driven by a receiver similar to yours, NOT AN AMPLIFIER. This would give you a false impression of how they would sound in your car. And always try to remember that speakers are the most important component in any system because they will effect sound quality (SQ) more than any other. If you are going to splurge on anything, splurge on speakers. Your ears will thank you. Actually, sensitivity ratings don't really tell us a whole lot about the sensitivity of a speaker. The sensitivity varies greatly as a function of frequency, yet most sensitivity ratings are measured at 1kHz (even for subwoofers, sometimes!). And then you've got manufacturers like Boston Acoustics who make their measurements at 0.5 meters, thereby artificially inflating their sensitivity rating. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 21:38:26 -0500, "MZ"
wrote: This is excellent advice. Really the only specification that should matter to you is sensitivity. The higher the better. And when you go to listen to speakers, make sure they are being driven by a receiver similar to yours, NOT AN AMPLIFIER. This would give you a false impression of how they would sound in your car. And always try to remember that speakers are the most important component in any system because they will effect sound quality (SQ) more than any other. If you are going to splurge on anything, splurge on speakers. Your ears will thank you. Actually, sensitivity ratings don't really tell us a whole lot about the sensitivity of a speaker. The sensitivity varies greatly as a function of frequency, yet most sensitivity ratings are measured at 1kHz (even for subwoofers, sometimes!). And then you've got manufacturers like Boston Acoustics who make their measurements at 0.5 meters, thereby artificially inflating their sensitivity rating. Pretty crafty - I had never noticed that in BA's specs before. That gives them what, an "extra" 6 dB of sensitivity, as opposed to a 1-meter measurement? That's pretty damned significant, considering that most speakers are clustered pretty closely together in the high 80's to high 90's when it comes to sensitivity. Scott |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
This is excellent advice. Really the only specification that should
matter to you is sensitivity. The higher the better. And when you go to listen to speakers, make sure they are being driven by a receiver similar to yours, NOT AN AMPLIFIER. This would give you a false impression of how they would sound in your car. And always try to remember that speakers are the most important component in any system because they will effect sound quality (SQ) more than any other. If you are going to splurge on anything, splurge on speakers. Your ears will thank you. Actually, sensitivity ratings don't really tell us a whole lot about the sensitivity of a speaker. The sensitivity varies greatly as a function of frequency, yet most sensitivity ratings are measured at 1kHz (even for subwoofers, sometimes!). And then you've got manufacturers like Boston Acoustics who make their measurements at 0.5 meters, thereby artificially inflating their sensitivity rating. Thank you, Mr. Nitpick. I'm afraid it's people like you who make me always have to qualify everything I say with "generally speaking" or "most often", etc. I make a rule to only give advice when I actually have some personal experience on the topic. I've bought a lot speakers in my life and although you are right in that you cannot always trust a manufacturere's specifications, sensitivity would be the best guide in insuring that the speakers would be loud enough driven by a headunit. MOSFET |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Thank you, Mr. Nitpick. I'm afraid it's people like you who make me
always have to qualify everything I say with "generally speaking" or "most often", etc. I make a rule to only give advice when I actually have some personal experience on the topic. I've bought a lot speakers in my life and although you are right in that you cannot always trust a manufacturere's specifications, sensitivity would be the best guide in insuring that the speakers would be loud enough driven by a headunit. It's not nitpicking. You had three points - one of which was that the sensitivity rating matters. I'm simply saying it doesn't. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
It's not nitpicking. You had three points - one of which was that the
sensitivity rating matters. I'm simply saying it doesn't. I know this is beating a dead horse.... My experience has been that sensitivity DOES matter. I've bought four sets of Boston Accoustics speakers, two sets of MB Quarts, three sets of Pioneer, two sets of Alpine, and maybe 10 subwoofers from various manufacturers (JL, RF, SS, Alpine). So I'm going to assume that YOUR EXPERIENCE with speakers has demonstrated that sensitivity doesn't make any difference? Right? MOSFET |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
I know this is beating a dead horse....
My experience has been that sensitivity DOES matter. I've bought four sets of Boston Accoustics speakers, two sets of MB Quarts, three sets of Pioneer, two sets of Alpine, and maybe 10 subwoofers from various manufacturers (JL, RF, SS, Alpine). So I'm going to assume that YOUR EXPERIENCE with speakers has demonstrated that sensitivity doesn't make any difference? Right? Sensitivity does matter. Sensitivity RATINGS, however, are inaccurate based on the way that they're conducted. Do you think the 1kHz sensitivity rating of a subwoofer is going to tell you anything about the sensitivity of that subwoofer? Do you think the sensitivity rating of a Boston Acoustics speaker can be adequately compared to the sensitivity rating of, say, a Pioneer speaker? Unfortunately, there's really no spec to go by when judging speakers. The power handling spec is all out of whack. The sensitivity spec is measured incorrectly. And frequency response specs are non-uniform and really irrelevant anyway. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
So, according with all the feedback I've received, I suppose that with two pairs (front and back) of Pioneer TS-1756II 2-way with: Frequency response of 30 - 22.000 Hz, Sensitivity (1W/1m) of 92 dB, Maximum Power of 160 Watt, Nominal input power of 35 Watt, would be fine with that receiver???? Wouldn't ,the speakers, be underpowered maybe ????? "Andrew" escribió en el mensaje ... Good evening to all, I just bought form a friend of mine a Sony receiver-mp3 CDX-MP30 with a "Maximum Power Output 52 Watts x 4" and "Continuous Power 23 Watts x 4" and I was wondering what kind of speakers would be a purrfect match, since I don't have a clue about car audio. You know, I would like to know the specifications of some coaxial speakers (Maximum power, Nominal input power, etc) which might sound good (in general terms) in combination with the above mentioned receiver, and without the need of an aditional amp nor subwoofer. Just the perfect speakers for it. thanx P.S. oh!, and no bigger than 17 cm!, don't got room for anything bigger than that ;-) andrew |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
So, according with all the feedback I've received, I suppose that with two
pairs (front and back) of Pioneer TS-1756II 2-way with: Frequency response of 30 - 22.000 Hz, Sensitivity (1W/1m) of 92 dB, Maximum Power of 160 Watt, Nominal input power of 35 Watt, would be fine with that receiver???? Have you listened to them yet? Are they available in your area to listen to? Wouldn't ,the speakers, be underpowered maybe ????? You could always buy an amp too. Until then, there's nothing you can do about it but hope that your head unit will provide adequate volume for your needs. Of course, there'd be no reason to intentionally go after a set of speakers that can't handle as much power. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Yes, I listened to them and the volume they produce is fine. But my question was more about the speakers specification matching the ones of the receiver. Like, the power of the receiver can handle the power of the speakers, or if maybe there is too much or too less power in the speakers/receiver. Example: what about a pair of speakers which its nominal input power is 50 Watt, and Maximum input power is 360. Are they good as well???? "MZ" escribió en el mensaje ... So, according with all the feedback I've received, I suppose that with two pairs (front and back) of Pioneer TS-1756II 2-way with: Frequency response of 30 - 22.000 Hz, Sensitivity (1W/1m) of 92 dB, Maximum Power of 160 Watt, Nominal input power of 35 Watt, would be fine with that receiver???? Have you listened to them yet? Are they available in your area to listen to? Wouldn't ,the speakers, be underpowered maybe ????? You could always buy an amp too. Until then, there's nothing you can do about it but hope that your head unit will provide adequate volume for your needs. Of course, there'd be no reason to intentionally go after a set of speakers that can't handle as much power. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Ok, then dont use any specs because they are all measured differently.
Everything is a lie. Just shoot yourself and get it over with. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Sensitivity does matter. Sensitivity RATINGS, however, are inaccurate
based on the way that they're conducted. Do you think the 1kHz sensitivity rating of a subwoofer is going to tell you anything about the sensitivity of that subwoofer? Do you think the sensitivity rating of a Boston Acoustics speaker can be adequately compared to the sensitivity rating of, say, a Pioneer speaker? Unfortunately, there's really no spec to go by when judging speakers. The power handling spec is all out of whack. The sensitivity spec is measured incorrectly. And frequency response specs are non-uniform and really irrelevant anyway. OK, you're repeating yourself. So I will too.... I know that manufacturer's listed specs are not always accurate, I get it! But here was what I was trying to say (maybe I wasn't clear enough). Yes, listening to speakers is the best and this is the best way to judge how loud they will be (when driven with a comparable HU). But, in my experience, I have found that a manufacturere's list specs DO INDEED give you a rough idea of how loud they will be. Case in point, the most recent speakers I have bought are a set of BA coaxials with a sensitivity of 91 dB and a set of MB Quart seperates with a sensitivity of 86 dB. And guess what? The BA's seem to me like they are quite a bit louder than the MB Quarts when driven by the same source. So the point I was trying to make was that if one cannot actually listen to the speakers, sensitivity ratings are going to be the best judge of loudness (despite their flaws). MOSFET |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
No according to MZ all specs are not equal. And who knows if the
manufacturers testing equipment has been calibrated, or if the test was done on of off axis, or in a sound proof room. See, you just can't trust anything. Pick what sounds nice to you. Thats it. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Sensitivity does matter. Sensitivity RATINGS, however, are inaccurate
based on the way that they're conducted. Do you think the 1kHz sensitivity rating of a subwoofer is going to tell you anything about the sensitivity of that subwoofer? Do you think the sensitivity rating of a Boston Acoustics speaker can be adequately compared to the sensitivity rating of, say, a Pioneer speaker? Unfortunately, there's really no spec to go by when judging speakers. The power handling spec is all out of whack. The sensitivity spec is measured incorrectly. And frequency response specs are non-uniform and really irrelevant anyway. And just to really beat this thing into the ground.... The more I think about it, I do recall that the given sensitivity of all the speakers I have bought HAVE given me a rough idea of how loud they will be. MZ, don't get offended, but is your analysis based on your having used a bunch of speakers or something you read or concluded on your own? You see, generally speaking, I think sensitivity ratings DO give you a good idea of how loud a speaker will sound, based on all the speakers I have used. So let me ask you again, your conclusion is based on your experience with speakers, right? I don't care about the tech stuff. MOSFET |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Pick what sounds nice to you. Thats it.
Well said (though MZ will probably find something wrong with that advice). MOSFET |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
OK, you're repeating yourself.
So I will too.... I know that manufacturer's listed specs are not always accurate, I get it! But here was what I was trying to say (maybe I wasn't clear enough). Yes, listening to speakers is the best and this is the best way to judge how loud they will be (when driven with a comparable HU). But, in my experience, I have found that a manufacturere's list specs DO INDEED give you a rough idea of how loud they will be. Case in point, the most recent speakers I have bought are a set of BA coaxials with a sensitivity of 91 dB and a set of MB Quart seperates with a sensitivity of 86 dB. And guess what? The BA's seem to me like they are quite a bit louder than the MB Quarts when driven by the same source. Is BA still providing sensitivity ratings at 1/2 meter? |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Ok, then dont use any specs because they are all measured differently.
Everything is a lie. Just shoot yourself and get it over with. Pretty much, yeah. Specs are entirely useless, except perhaps when you're comparing two products from the same line and same manufacturer. Otherwise, there's absolutely no reason to even look at them because they are meaningless. Shotting yourself and getting it over with may be the best option, yes. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
And just to really beat this thing into the ground....
The more I think about it, I do recall that the given sensitivity of all the speakers I have bought HAVE given me a rough idea of how loud they will be. MZ, don't get offended, but is your analysis based on your having used a bunch of speakers or something you read or concluded on your own? It's based on several things. First, it's based on having installed dozens of speakers in my own vehicles. It's based on listening to well over a hundred different speakers, of which I had sensitivity ratings (obviously I wouldn't include the ones I don't have ratings for). But it's also based on understanding what sensitivity IS, and how it varies as a function of frequency, and then noting just how different the sensitivity of a subwoofer, for example, is when measured at 1kHz as opposed to being measured at 100 Hz. I'm not sure why you don't care about the "tech stuff" though. |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
No according to MZ all specs are not equal. And who knows if the
manufacturers testing equipment has been calibrated, or if the test was done on of off axis, or in a sound proof room. See, you just can't trust anything. True. You can't trust anything because there's no standard. We should all know this by now, when comparing the "1000 watt" Pyramid amp to the "50 watt" PPI amp. (turns out the actual power output is probably the same) Or when we look at frequency response measurements, absent their +/- dB qualifiers. Or when we look at damping factor ratings. Or when we look at S/N ratings. Or when we look at distortion measurements, which sometimes will include noise and sometimes not (and they don't always tell you), or will sometimes just be harmonic distortion, or will sometimes include IMD (even though they still quote "total *harmonic* distortion)... The list goes on. Pick what sounds nice to you. Thats it. That's the bottom line. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Well said (though MZ will probably find something wrong with that advice).
Why would I? Isn't that the point I've been making all along? Actually, isn't that the point I've been making for the past 7 years posting in this newsgroup? |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Yes, I listened to them and the volume they produce is fine. But my
question was more about the speakers specification matching the ones of the receiver. Like, the power of the receiver can handle the power of the speakers, or if maybe there is too much or too less power in the speakers/receiver. Example: what about a pair of speakers which its nominal input power is 50 Watt, and Maximum input power is 360. Are they good as well???? There's no need to match power ratings. First of all, unless you're comparing stereo and speaker made by the same manufacturer, then the power ratings don't tell you much (and even if it is the same manufacturer, it still doesn't always tell the whole story). The reason for this is because there is no standard by which to rate these things. Secondly, the power handling capability of the speaker does not have to be as low as the power output of the stereo. If you have a 100 watt speaker, that only means that it can handle a maximum of 100 watts. There's no reason to try to find a speaker that handles less than that. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Actually,
isn't that the point I've been making for the past 7 years posting in this newsgroup? 7 years? I 've been posting to this newgroup for well over 10 years now (under various names). I remember when Manville Smith from JL would regularly answer questions (the old timers here will know what I'm talking about). So there, nyahhh!!! MOSFET |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
7 years? I 've been posting to this newgroup for well over 10 years now
(under various names). I remember when Manville Smith from JL would regularly answer questions (the old timers here will know what I'm talking about). So there, nyahhh!!! Yes, I remember Manville also. But my question was...has there ever been a time when I suggested anything other to go with the speakers that sound best to you? |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
I'm not sure why you don't care about the "tech stuff" though.
Well, because as I know now that you've been on this group for seven years, I'm sure you've seen your share of those people who give advice because of things they've read in magazines, "deduced" from having studied electrical engineering, or heard from other people. Ten years ago when I used to give advice on this group under the name VictorTanner (remember me?), I too often fell into this trap. I have since learned that the only advice that means ANYTHING is personal experience. If you do not feel this way, give it a few more years, you will. If this "tech stuff" were the end all and be all of audio reproduction, there would be only ONE design for speaker cables, ONE design for amplifiers, One design for speakers, etc. Every equipment maker can give you reems of data as to why their design is the best. Over the past 15 years, I have seen theories come and go, all based on loads of "tech stuff". Remember the center channel craze in the early ninties, horn loaded compression drivers, isobaric enclosures, rear-fill, no rear-fill, back to rear-fill, Aura "Bass Shakers", PG's Cyclone sub, 20 bit Burr-Brown DAC's, class A amps, water cooled amps, and I could go on and on. All of these had loads of "tech stuff" claiming that this technology was superior to all else and would change the entire industry. Obviously, good engineering is critical in our industry, but I believe it is dangerous to base certain conclusions strictly on "tech stuff" as there almost always seems to be two sides of the story. However, what cannot be disputed is ones own experience. Are you seeing what I'm getting at? Personal experience is ALWAYS safe ground and irrifutable (as long as you are not lying). When I saw your original post on this, the flags went up for me because a) this was not my experience, I had found that sensitivity ratings did indeed generally predict loudness and b) you did not mention your own experience, just a bunch of "tech stuff" which almost always is open to alternative interpretation and loads of qualifications. No one can argue, however, with what you have ACTUALLY OBSERVED in the real world. I hope this clarifies my position on this subject. MOSFET |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Well, because as I know now that you've been on this group for seven
years, I'm sure you've seen your share of those people who give advice because of things they've read in magazines, "deduced" from having studied electrical engineering, or heard from other people. Ten years ago when I used to give advice on this group under the name VictorTanner (remember me?), I too often fell into this trap. I have since learned that the only advice that means ANYTHING is personal experience. If you do not feel this way, give it a few more years, you will. If this "tech stuff" were the end all and be all of audio reproduction, there would be only ONE design for speaker cables, ONE design for amplifiers, One design for speakers, etc. Every equipment maker can give you reems of data as to why their design is the best. Over the past 15 years, I have seen theories come and go, all based on loads of "tech stuff". Remember the center channel craze in the early ninties, horn loaded compression drivers, isobaric enclosures, rear-fill, no rear-fill, back to rear-fill, Aura "Bass Shakers", PG's Cyclone sub, 20 bit Burr-Brown DAC's, class A amps, water cooled amps, and I could go on and on. All of these had loads of "tech stuff" claiming that this technology was superior to all else and would change the entire industry. Obviously, good engineering is critical in our industry, but I believe it is dangerous to base certain conclusions strictly on "tech stuff" as there almost always seems to be two sides of the story. However, what cannot be disputed is ones own experience. Are you seeing what I'm getting at? Personal experience is ALWAYS safe ground and irrifutable (as long as you are not lying). When I saw your original post on this, the flags went up for me because a) this was not my experience, I had found that sensitivity ratings did indeed generally predict loudness and b) you did not mention your own experience, just a bunch of "tech stuff" which almost always is open to alternative interpretation and loads of qualifications. No one can argue, however, with what you have ACTUALLY OBSERVED in the real world. I hope this clarifies my position on this subject. In general, you're right. Real world experience is almost always a more efficient way of answering a question than "book smarts". But I don't think you should be too quick to dismiss the basic logical deduction inherent in a theoretical framework with which to describe your observations. However, you should be aware of its limitations, and that tends to be the problem - people try to answer complex questions with an all-encompassing theoretical construct, which usually has the tendency of not accounting for all the variables. As a rule, I don't think you can get by with having one but not the other. The theory may be sound, but oops! -- forgot to take something else into account. Or, simplified one aspect to make the pieces fit, but it turns out that it's not something that you can justifiably simplify. Conversely, personal observation can only get you so far. You've always got the problem of sampling bias, which is virtually impossible to overcome in the real world. Remember, it was the observation without the "tech stuff" that led people to the belief that the world was flat. Hey, it's only our senses and they ain't perfect! Anyway, it's important to describe WHY sensitivity measurements are imprecise. Otherwise, it turns into a "I heard it one way!" "Well, I heard it another way!" subjective battle with no end in sight. So I thought it was worth bringing up that, well, sensitivity ratings, along with the rest of the spec sheet, is chock full of lies, damned lies! Well, "lies" is a harsh term. I don't think these manufacturers are intentionally being misleading (though some probably are - eg. "1000 watt pyramid amps"). They're just using different methods, and as a result, you'd come up with a different number each time you performed the particular measure. Clearly there's a problem then. Also, there's more to the story than just sensitivity. Sensitivity measurements are (often) performed while maintaining a constant wattage through the driver. But impedance characteristics and power compression tendencies vary dramatically between two speakers with similar sensitivities. So it's not uncommon for a speaker with a lower sensitivity to play louder than the other if the impedance and power compression are lower. Yes, speakers like this exist, and as expected, they don't defy the laws of physics... |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"MOSFET" wrote in message ... I'm not sure why you don't care about the "tech stuff" though. Well, because as I know now that you've been on this group for seven years, I'm sure you've seen your share of those people who give advice because of things they've read in magazines, "deduced" from having studied electrical engineering, or heard from other people. Ten years ago when I used to give advice on this group under the name VictorTanner (remember me?), I too often fell into this trap. I have since learned that the only advice that means ANYTHING is personal experience. And I find that is dangerous thinking. I will explain more below. If you do not feel this way, give it a few more years, you will. Doubt it. I used to feel that way years ago but I have since wised up and realized that personal experience cannot defy physics or the "tech stuff". Personal experience must fall in line with physics for it to be valid. If this "tech stuff" were the end all and be all of audio reproduction, there would be only ONE design for speaker cables, ONE design for amplifiers, One design for speakers, etc. Every design has tradeoffs, therefore there will not be one design for everything. Some trade reliablity for price, or space considerations, more efficient operation, etc. There is not an end all be all not because of the science behind it but because of different situations requiring different solutions. Basic Engineering at work folks. Every equipment maker can give you reems of data as to why their design is the best. I think you are confusing marketing with engineering. They are 2 differnent fields. Over the past 15 years, I have seen theories come and go, all based on loads of "tech stuff". Remember the center channel craze in the early ninties, What's wrong with it? If you like it and can decode it then go for it. horn loaded compression drivers, Still in use in audio reproduction. Designed for something specific and do a very good job when properly implemented. isobaric enclosures, rear-fill, no rear-fill, back to rear-fill, Aura "Bass Shakers", PG's Cyclone sub, 20 bit Burr-Brown DAC's, class A amps, water cooled amps, and I could go on and on. All of these had loads of "tech stuff" claiming that this technology was superior to all else and would change the entire industry. Again, you are confusing marketing with the science. This I believe is Marks point. You cannot trust the marketers so you must rely on yourself. BUT a strong background in the "tech stuff" as you call it can help you make better, more informed choices. Therefore you rely less on the inaccurate marketing and more on the tech stuff. Obviously, good engineering is critical in our industry, but I believe it is dangerous to base certain conclusions strictly on "tech stuff" as there almost always seems to be two sides of the story. I haven't seen anyone doing that, certainly not Mark. I know his thoughts on most car audio subjects, and most people know mine if they've been here a while. The only people I have seen doing this are typically the snake oil audiophiles using it to justify ungodly expensive cables, wood, screws, terminals etc. However, what cannot be disputed is ones own experience. Yes and no. A person's experience cannot be disputed but their explanation of that experience can. Example: Someone tells another person that clipping blows speakers. Why? Because they clipped their amp and the speakers blew. No doubt they experienced a damaged driver but what they attributed it to was wrong. That is where all this "tech stuff" is needed and why a strong background in it is as important as experience. You can then identify the real cause of the damaged driver and prevent it in the future. Are you seeing what I'm getting at? Personal experience is ALWAYS safe ground and irrifutable (as long as you are not lying). Nope. See above. If it defies the laws of physics or accepted engineering then it is refutable. See what I am getting at? When I saw your original post on this, the flags went up for me because a) this was not my experience, I had found that sensitivity ratings did indeed generally predict loudness and I think the beef was how the ratings were achieved, which are dubious at best and lies at worst. That is why it is unimportant to look at the numbers because who knows how accurate they will be. And to base your descision off of a number that cannot be confirmed it foolish. b) you did not mention your own experience, just a bunch of "tech stuff" Which was a perfectly valid explanation of why the numbers were unimportant. Notice it is not the parameter that is unimportant just the number the manufacture associated with it. Big difference. which almost always is open to alternative interpretation and loads of qualifications. No one can argue, however, with what you have ACTUALLY OBSERVED in the real world. Again, yes and no. I will not argue that smoke came out your amplifier but I will reject the claim that it was because you also had a nail in your tire. I hope this clarifies my position on this subject. MOSFET The "tech stuff" and personal experience goes together hand in hand. To make truly knowledgeable descisions you must rely on both and find the balance. Personal experience can tell you what sound you like and what you don't like but the science will tell you that those cables won't make a difference and it's all in your head. Our brains are remarkably good at fooling themselves, which is where the science will come in and help you to analyze and make informed decsisions about what is really happening. I am not saying that personal experience is not needed, because it is. But without a strong "tech stuff" background you can and will often attribute your personal experience to the wrong thing. Les |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Doubt it. I used to feel that way years ago but I have since wised up and
realized that personal experience cannot defy physics or the "tech stuff". Personal experience must fall in line with physics for it to be valid. Of course personal experience cannot defy physics, I never said that. And if you are talking about a strictly mathematical type of issue (a voltage or amperage determination for instance), obviously you would want to depend on the laws of physics, not personal observation. But this is not what we are talking about. MZ said that sensitivity specs supplied by manufactureers are meaningless and proceeded to give reasons why this is so. Again, for the umpteenth time, after buying dozens of speakers in my life (for myself and others) I have found that sensitivity ratings do indeed give a ROUGH idea of how loud a speaker will play. That's all I'm saying! I am not saying that MZ's evidence is wrong. I think you are confusing marketing with engineering. They are 2 differnent fields. Wait a sec, where do you think the marketing guys get their information? Do you think they pull it out of thin air (it sounds like you do!). No, they get it from the engineers. I worked at Phoenix Gold in marketing and we worked hand in hand with the engineers. THE ENGINEERS WROTE THE SPECS, NOT THE MARKETING DEPARTMENT. The engineers also approved all promotional copy so (at least for PG as this is my only experince actually inside a company) you are flat out wrong on this. You know, I really think that this boils down to a question of absolutes. Unless MZ personally knows how every speaker manufacturer determines sensitivity, it is impossible to make a blanket statement like "all sensitivity ratings are useless". He has some examples where they are useless and reasons why they MIGHT be. At the same time, I cannot say "all sensitivity ratings are accurate", even though I have many examples where they appeared to be accurate (or at least a good guidline). This is why I go back to personal experience. On THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE, personal experience IS more relevant than anything else because one cannot know how ALL speaker makers measure their amps. Les, blanket statements about ALL speakers seem unwise (unless you have used ALL speakers) and I would think that you would know that. MOSFET |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
I think you are confusing marketing with engineering. They are 2
differnent fields. Wait a sec, where do you think the marketing guys get their information? Do you think they pull it out of thin air (it sounds like you do!). No, they get it from the engineers. I worked at Phoenix Gold in marketing and we worked hand in hand with the engineers. THE ENGINEERS WROTE THE SPECS, NOT THE MARKETING DEPARTMENT. The engineers also approved all promotional copy so (at least for PG as this is my only experince actually inside a company) you are flat out wrong on this. There are certain strategies that marketing departments use that may be a departure from the truth, though. For example, JL Audio recommends never driving just one coil of a DVC subwoofer, claiming that you'll damage it by doing so. Of course, we know that this isn't true. In fact, Adire Audio dedicates an entire webpage to discussing how one can do this to achieve different results. So the question becomes: why is JL saying this? My guess is that they don't want people to screw things up. If you do it wrong, you may not blow the woofer but I suppose you could make it sound like crap. You know, I really think that this boils down to a question of absolutes. Unless MZ personally knows how every speaker manufacturer determines sensitivity, it is impossible to make a blanket statement like "all sensitivity ratings are useless". He has some examples where they are useless and reasons why they MIGHT be. At the same time, I cannot say "all sensitivity ratings are accurate", even though I have many examples where they appeared to be accurate (or at least a good guidline). This is why I go back to personal experience. On THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE, personal experience IS more relevant than anything else because one cannot know how ALL speaker makers measure their amps. Les, blanket statements about ALL speakers seem unwise (unless you have used ALL speakers) and I would think that you would know that. I think the "blanket statement" is perfectly warranted. First of all, sensitivity doesn't tell the whole story. I've already described why, so I won't go into it again. Second, manufacturers measure sensitivity in different ways, so how can you compare the numbers from one to the numbers from another? For example, you brought up the Boston Acoustics speaker example earlier, where it had a 91dB sensitivity rating and it was louder than your other 86dB speaker. But how do you know that the 86dB speaker wouldn't have measured 91dB @ 1w, 0.5 meters, which is probably the testing parameters BA used? |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Pretty crafty - I had never noticed that in BA's specs before. That
gives them what, an "extra" 6 dB of sensitivity, as opposed to a 1-meter measurement? That's pretty damned significant, considering that most speakers are clustered pretty closely together in the high 80's to high 90's when it comes to sensitivity. Yeah, theoretically it should be 6dB. But when you take into account the directionality aspect, it should end up much less than that. Maybe only a couple of dBs? |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
To further illustrate my point, here's a manufacturer that provides
sensitivity/impedance graphs on their web site (I actually own a set of speakers made by these guys). http://www.morelusa.com/tweeters/mdt-41.htm http://www.morelusa.com/tweeters/mdt-43.htm The MDT-43 speaker boasts a higher sensitivity rating (92 dB vs 90dB). The nominal impedance of both speakers is 8 ohms. But if you look a little closer, you'll see that the actual sensitivity graph (sensitivity as a function of frequency) is almost identical for both speakers. On top of that, if you look at the impedance graph for each speaker, you'll also find that it's pretty similar, except that the MDT-41 reaches about 8 ohms at resonance whereas the MDT-43 is about 9.5 ohms at resonance, meaning that, at around 700-800 Hz, the MDT-41 would actually play louder than the MDT-41, despite the MDT-41's higher sensitivity rating. It's unlikely that you would be using these tweeters at 800 Hz, but there's nowhere where the MDT-43 exhibits a lower impedance than the MDT-41. The unaccounted variable here is power compression, but that doesn't apply to 1 watt ratings. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
There are certain strategies that marketing departments use that may be a
departure from the truth, though. For example, JL Audio recommends never driving just one coil of a DVC subwoofer, claiming that you'll damage it by doing so. Of course, we know that this isn't true. In fact, Adire Audio dedicates an entire webpage to discussing how one can do this to achieve different results. So the question becomes: why is JL saying this? My guess is that they don't want people to screw things up. If you do it wrong, you may not blow the woofer but I suppose you could make it sound like crap. Yes, this is certainly true and I suppose we have all seen mis-information, usually designed to hype a particular product. It's just I AM ONE OF THOSE MARKETING GUYS (I have an MBA and taught a Consumer Behavior course as an Adjunct Professor at the Univeristy of Portland when I worked at Phoenix Gold in 2000-2001, now I live near Seattle). I was a little put off by Les's statements that marketing departments are somehow dishonest. That certainly IS NOT how we operated at PG. I'm growing weary of our little war of words so I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree. Just do one thing for me, go to your closest Audio store and find the speakers with the lowest rated sensitivity (MB quarts seperates tend to have very low sensitivity), and then find a set of coaxials with the highest and listen with only a HU to drive them. See if there's a big difference. Rock on, MOSFET |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Yes, this is certainly true and I suppose we have all seen
mis-information, usually designed to hype a particular product. It's just I AM ONE OF THOSE MARKETING GUYS (I have an MBA and taught a Consumer Behavior course as an Adjunct Professor at the Univeristy of Portland when I worked at Phoenix Gold in 2000-2001, now I live near Seattle). I was a little put off by Les's statements that marketing departments are somehow dishonest. That certainly IS NOT how we operated at PG. I'm growing weary of our little war of words so I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree. Just do one thing for me, go to your closest Audio store and find the speakers with the lowest rated sensitivity (MB quarts seperates tend to have very low sensitivity), and then find a set of coaxials with the highest and listen with only a HU to drive them. See if there's a big difference. Been there, done that. Thanks for the recommendation though. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
MOSFET wrote: Every equipment maker can give you reems of data as to why their design is the best. Much of it really isnt 'TECH STUFF' as much as it is marketing bull**** disguised as tech stuff... Any advantage * real or percieved* can lead to more sales.. to the manufacturers thats what its all about.. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
You guys are all newbies to me.... ha ha ha
MOSFET wrote: 7 years? I 've been posting to this newgroup for well over 10 years now (under various names). |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 10:02:58 -0500, "MZ"
wrote: Pretty crafty - I had never noticed that in BA's specs before. That gives them what, an "extra" 6 dB of sensitivity, as opposed to a 1-meter measurement? That's pretty damned significant, considering that most speakers are clustered pretty closely together in the high 80's to high 90's when it comes to sensitivity. Yeah, theoretically it should be 6dB. But when you take into account the directionality aspect, it should end up much less than that. Maybe only a couple of dBs? Yep, that's what I was thinking. 6 dB would be if it were purely spherical dispersion. For pure cylindrical dispersion, it would only be 3 dB, so I figure it would be somewhere in the middle. Either way, it's a significant "advantage" over another speaker measured at 1 meter. Scott |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
All of these posts and I didn't see anyone mention to Andrew that even
when he finds a set of speakers that he likes, presumably after listening to them in a showroom, there is a good chance that they are not going to sound that way when he is cruising around in his vehicle. : ) A little off topic but noteworthy I think. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
"MOSFET" wrote in message ... Doubt it. I used to feel that way years ago but I have since wised up and realized that personal experience cannot defy physics or the "tech stuff". Personal experience must fall in line with physics for it to be valid. Of course personal experience cannot defy physics, I never said that. You said "Personal experience is ALWAYS safe ground and irrifutable (as long as you are not lying)" and "No one can argue, however, with what you have ACTUALLY OBSERVED in the real world." You never said that it could but it is easily implied by these statements. I wanted to provide reasoning for why you cannot always rely on what was "observed", and why personal experience can be decieving. And if you are talking about a strictly mathematical type of issue (a voltage or amperage determination for instance), obviously you would want to depend on the laws of physics, not personal observation. Most car audio boils down to a strictly mathematical issue. Similar to amplifiers and SQ. One cannot look at the physics and the mathmetics and honestly say that amps sound different. But this is not what we are talking about. MZ said that sensitivity specs supplied by manufactureers are meaningless and proceeded to give reasons why this is so. Again, for the umpteenth time, after buying dozens of speakers in my life (for myself and others) I have found that sensitivity ratings do indeed give a ROUGH idea of how loud a speaker will play. And for the umpteenth time the spec is useless because there is no baseline, a standard or reference, or an agreed upon testing procedure. It is not that the parameter itself is meaningless, it is just meaningless in the context it is used. Even a rough idea of how loud it will be still won't tell you if it sounds good. That's all I'm saying! I am not saying that MZ's evidence is wrong. I think you are confusing marketing with engineering. They are 2 differnent fields. Wait a sec, where do you think the marketing guys get their information? Do you think they pull it out of thin air (it sounds like you do!). No, they get it from the engineers. I am well aware at where the base information comes from. But reading the outside of the box tells me an engineer didn't write it and decide to put 1000WATTS in big bold letters on the outside. I worked at Phoenix Gold in marketing and we worked hand in hand with the engineers. THE ENGINEERS WROTE THE SPECS, NOT THE MARKETING DEPARTMENT. The engineers also approved all promotional copy so (at least for PG as this is my only experince actually inside a company) you are flat out wrong on this. So you worked for one company and you know about every other one? It is the marketing department that touts product x as the best product. It is the marketing departments that tell you that there product line is the best and everyone will love it. They are the ones who make the claims that a df of 500 is way superior than their competitors of 300. If an engineer made these claims then he would be lying. Some companies are more honest than others, PG probably being one of them. But they would be the minority. Les, blanket statements about ALL speakers seem unwise (unless you have used ALL speakers) and I would think that you would know that. It's a good thing I never used any! I think that you are completely missing the point. If there is not baseline, or standard for the measurement of the spec then it becomes virtually meaningless. It is entirely possible for 2 different speakers to have different sensitivity ratings and yet still play at the same volume. Now, if you know how it was measured and had the data one could likely come up with a reasonable comparison. But my rule, and what I would believe Marks rule (after years of reading his drivel ) would be to go with what sounds best to you in your vehicle. Les |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
If there is not baseline, or standard for the measurement of the
spec then it becomes virtually meaningless. It is entirely possible for 2 different speakers to have different sensitivity ratings and yet still play at the same volume. Les, Les, Les.... You keep saying there is no standard but as you well know, THERE IS! 1 watt/1 meter/ 1kHz This is the accepted standard that the reputable companies use. I'm sure you must know this. Yes, some cheat, but by and large the reputable companies follow these guidlines. And as far as personal experience, what I meant was that personal experience is NOT ALWAYS RIGHT, however, it CANNOT BE DISPUTED! This is EXACTLY why only personal experince is used as testimony in court, not hersay. It may not be right, but you CANNOT tell me I DID NOT SEE OR HEAR WHAT I SAW OR HEARD. That is why I said it is irrifutable. Get it? This is opposed to someone who gives advice based on something they heard or read. If I have observed that sensitivity ratings do give me an idea of how loud a speaker will sound, then it is true for me and nothing you can say will convince me otherwise, hence, irrifutable. We are driffting into the realm of the philosophical here, grasshopper (if a tree falls in the woods...). I hope this clarifies my position once and for all as I am really tiring of this thread. MOSFET |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
6 speakers 1 powered mixer | Pro Audio | |||
rec.audio.car FAQ (Part 4/5) | Car Audio | |||
My equipment review of the Bose 901 | Audio Opinions | |||
AER Pisces PB-651 V2.0 speaker review | Audio Opinions | |||
Remote speakers? L-pads? Totally confused! | General |