Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
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. Boston Acoustics is one of those companies that cheats. 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? I cannot tell you that you don't THINK you heard what you did. I'm sure you feel you heard something. But that doesn't mean that this thing wasn't a figment of your imagination. This happens all the time - for instance, when someone buys a $300 RCA cable they think it sounds better (fuller, more crisp, blah blah blah) than their Radio Shack cables. But if you conducted a simple double blind experiment with the proper controls, you'd be able to remove their bias from the equation and you'd see that the perceived difference was imagined. 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. I don't think anyone is saying that your experiences didn't happen. But I would counter your general rule by giving you examples of where it fails. I think I've adequately explained the "why" part. Hopefully it adds up for you, because I'm not planning on going out and sending you some speakers to try. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 23:21:57 -0500, "MZ"
wrote: I cannot tell you that you don't THINK you heard what you did. I'm sure you feel you heard something. But that doesn't mean that this thing wasn't a figment of your imagination. This happens all the time - for instance, when someone buys a $300 RCA cable they think it sounds better (fuller, more crisp, blah blah blah) than their Radio Shack cables. But if you conducted a simple double blind experiment with the proper controls, you'd be able to remove their bias from the equation and you'd see that the perceived difference was imagined. This is why I absolutely **love** it when magazines do the double-blind/ABX tests. You have audiophiles crowing about how stellar their $500/foot interconnects sound (or the $20k amplifier, or the difference between a ceramic or glass turntable platter, etcetera etcetera etcetera). They'll say that the difference is "night and day", or "a complete transformation", but time and time again, they've shown themselves to be completely unable to tell the difference if they don't know beforehand which one they're listening to. For those not familiar with ABX or double-blind tests, here's an example: You claim to be able to hear the difference between "Brand A" and "Brand B" interconnects. We set up a stereo system so that we can select between the two sets of interconnects. You listen to "Brand A" for as long as you like, knowing that it's "Brand A". Then, you listen to "Brand B", for as long as you like, knowing that it's "Brand B". Finally, I hook up either "Brand A" or "Brand B", but I don't tell you which. You have to listen to it and tell me whether you're hearing "Brand A" or "Brand B". This process (listen to "A", listen to "B", then listen to "X" and identify it as "A" or "B") is repeated several times (usually at least ten times) so that you can be statistically certain the results aren't from guessing. It's a lot of fun to watch the hard-core audiophiles come up with reasons why ABX comparisons aren't valid. I think it's an "emperor's new clothes" kind of thing, where they're afraid to admit they've bought snake oil at $1000/ounce. Scott Gardner |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
I don't think anyone is saying that your experiences didn't happen. But I
would counter your general rule by giving you examples of where it fails. I think I've adequately explained the "why" part. Hopefully it adds up for you, because I'm not planning on going out and sending you some speakers to try. Oh, geez, here we go again.... I know you hate hearing this but I am less interested in the "why" part and more interested in what YOU, MZ, have actually observed. I could sit here and listen all day to "why" Cardas Audio cables sound better than Kimber Cable. I could be shown graphs, shown complicated formulas, I could be told all about Cardas' double-shielded balanced quad-axial 16.5 AWG constant Q enameled multi-gauge litz conductor with Teflon insulation and urethane jacket. There are perhaps dozens of reasons "why" Cardas should sound better than Kimber. But obviously, the ONLY thing that counts is listening. This is a good example why the "why" of it all is simply not as important as the ultimate result. Yes, thanks to you I now know "why" sensitivity figures shouldn't matter, but is that what you have actually observed by listening? That's all I ever asked. Remember, MZ, this whole thing is about LISTENING to music. If we are going to give opinions on the loudness of speakers, let's hope we have actually listened to them. MOSFET |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Oh, geez, here we go again....
I know you hate hearing this but I am less interested in the "why" part and more interested in what YOU, MZ, have actually observed. I could sit here and listen all day to "why" Cardas Audio cables sound better than Kimber Cable. I could be shown graphs, shown complicated formulas, I could be told all about Cardas' double-shielded balanced quad-axial 16.5 AWG constant Q enameled multi-gauge litz conductor with Teflon insulation and urethane jacket. There are perhaps dozens of reasons "why" Cardas should sound better than Kimber. But obviously, the ONLY thing that counts is listening. This is a good example why the "why" of it all is simply not as important as the ultimate result. Yes, thanks to you I now know "why" sensitivity figures shouldn't matter, but is that what you have actually observed by listening? That's all I ever asked. Remember, MZ, this whole thing is about LISTENING to music. If we are going to give opinions on the loudness of speakers, let's hope we have actually listened to them. What you're essentially saying is that we know nothing about the scientific world, and nothing can be predicted. Sorry, but I don't think that is accurate. We know all about speakers, really. We can make any kind of measurements we want, and we know which one will play at a higher SPL than the other, and what the power content as a function of frequency will be. This isn't magic. It's fundamental laws of electricity and magnetism, coupled with fluid dynamics and maybe some thermodynamics thrown in there for fun. Now, unless you're willing to throw the entire field of physics into disarray by proclaiming it's wrong, then you really can't argue with this. You've obviously had a lot of experience listening to speakers, but you haven't listened to all of them. If you had, you'd realize that some speakers may claim greater sensitivity ratings than others but still don't play as loud (either in terms of SPL or perceived loudness). I believe you when you say the ones that you've personally compared sound like they follow the pattern. Luck of the draw, I guess. But I think you're making a mistake when you try to extend your own personal observations to all speakers. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
But I think you're making a
mistake when you try to extend your own personal observations to all speakers. I have NEVER said that my experience can be applied to all speakers, in fact, I have no idea what I might have said that gave you that idea. In fact, that is preciesly the point I have been trying to make. In the world of car audio speakers, I have used only a handful. I only intended to share MY experiences. It is YOU who is extending your conclusions to ALL sensitivity ratings. You said they are all meaningless. Have you annalyzed how EVERY speaker manufactureer measures their sensitivity? I doubt it. Again, we are going in circles but like I have said I just don't think you can make a statement like all sensitivity ratings are useless and should be ignored. That's what got me going on this in the first place. That presumes you know EVERYTHING about how EVERY manufacturerer measures their speakers sensitivity. I know, I know, BA doen't play by the rules and I'm sure many others don't as well, it just seems to me it is best to stick to what you know for sure. For instance, maybe BA measures their sensitivity differently, but maybe the results are usefull in comparing BA speakers to other speakers. Could this be possible? Do you know? If so, THIS is the kind of information I find useful, personal observations. Again, MZ, I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this issue. You see, you are NEVER going to convince me that sensitivity ratings are useless. My EXPERIENCE says they are. End of story. MOSFET |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
"MOSFET" wrote in message ... 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. It is NOT the accepted standard. There is no standard! A company can go out and get the rating however they choose. A standard would imply that all companies have to follow certain guidelines in order to publish the specs. But they don't. Nutritional Information on your cereal box has a standard, car audio ratings do not. Besides, even if some (heck even a majority) abide how are you going to know which ones do and which ones don't? Then let's not forget that for many speakers (subwoofers, midbass drivers) 1k does not even factor into the frequency range that it plays, making it even more useless! I'm sure you must know this. Yes, some cheat, but by and large the reputable companies follow these guidlines. There not cheating, they are choosing to follow a different procedure. How can you be cheating if there is not a universally accepted procedure? And as far as personal experience, what I meant was that personal experience is NOT ALWAYS RIGHT, however, it CANNOT BE DISPUTED! Well, you never said that. In fact I interpreted it the opposite, as I am sure most people did with the way you went on and on how "tech stuff" has no place and your experience is all that matters. I even said in my first post that I wouldn't doubt someone's experience but I would question what they attributed it too. Sometimes it is just our mind playing tricks. Sometimes it's because you sent to much power to the driver. Or sometimes you just hooked something up wrong. But we can often contribute our "experience" to the wrong thing and BAM another audio myth is continued or started. 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. I can't tell you that you THOUGHT you saw or heard something. But if there is nothing there then I sure as heck can tell you that your personal experience was wrong. If you claimed to hear a difference in the speaker cables when in fact none existed then are you telling me that there was a difference because you heard it? 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. Just because someone cannot convince you otherwise doesn't mean it is irrefutable. Irrefutable means impossible to disprove. In my above example I can disprove it, hence it is NOT irrefutable. Whether or not you choose to look at the facts and agree does not matter. Unfortunately you are relying on imperfect observations and "Testing Equipment" (ears, eyes) to attempt to make a perfect claim. 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. Sorry, nothing philosophical here, just science and engineering. You need to understand that without the knowledge of the details of the specs (and those you are attempting to make a comparison) in every instance you cannot make a fair comparison. Sorry, not matter what you think you have heard or experienced won't change that. I work in the pro sound field for a living and can tell you that I have compared low sensitive stuff to high sensitive and the results were not in line with what you are telling me. So who's experiences were right? Les |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
"MOSFET" wrote in message ... I don't think anyone is saying that your experiences didn't happen. But I would counter your general rule by giving you examples of where it fails. I think I've adequately explained the "why" part. Hopefully it adds up for you, because I'm not planning on going out and sending you some speakers to try. Oh, geez, here we go again.... I know you hate hearing this but I am less interested in the "why" part and more interested in what YOU, MZ, have actually observed But obviously, the ONLY thing that counts is listening. You're kidding right? You're not actually using esoteric cables as a credible example? Ok, even if you are. Unfortunately the argument "the only that counts is listening" is merely a way to circumvent the science and physics at work and is false. Your mind has the incredible ability to play tricks on you (seen any illusions lately?) There is a thing called psychoacoustics. Which is why not only listening is important but the science behind it is important as well. Listening tells you what you like and the science helps to quelch some of your bias' and let you listen to what really is, or isn't, happening. This is a good example why the "why" of it all is simply not as important as the ultimate result. Yes, thanks to you I now know "why" sensitivity figures shouldn't matter, but is that what you have actually observed by listening? I told you what I observed. So who's right? That's all I ever asked. Remember, MZ, this whole thing is about LISTENING to music. If we are going to give opinions on the loudness of speakers, let's hope we have actually listened to them. EXACTLY!!! Actually listen to them. Why screw with any of the numbers at all?!?! Why look at this number or that just find ones you like. That is the point! Mark, is that not what you have been getting at for oh, 7 years of posting? Les |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
I work in the pro sound field for a living
and can tell you that I have compared low sensitive stuff to high sensitive and the results were not in line with what you are telling me. So who's experiences were right? Les I'm not going to play the "I do this for a living game so I'm right". I'm sure everyone is very impressed with your credentials. MOSFET |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
"MOSFET" wrote in message ... Again, we are going in circles but like I have said I just don't think you can make a statement like all sensitivity ratings are useless and should be ignored. That's what got me going on this in the first place. That presumes you know EVERYTHING about how EVERY manufacturerer measures their speakers sensitivity. No it doesn't. It presumes enough personal experience with several brands to realize that they all have different methods of analyzing and attributing the data recieved. I know, I know, BA doen't play by the rules and I'm sure many others don't as well, it just seems to me it is best to stick to what you know for sure. And what you know for sure is NOTHING! For most manufactures you do not know how the ratings were achieved, and the few you do don't have the same standard. Therefore the numbers cannot be trusted to mean the same thing so you should just ignore them unless you can verify. And even then what is the point? Just listen to them. For instance, maybe BA measures their sensitivity differently, but maybe the results are usefull in comparing BA speakers to other speakers. If they measure it differently then no it would not be useful for comparisons. Could this be possible? Do you know? If so, THIS is the kind of information I find useful, personal observations. Ok. Observe that I have installed hundreds of systems and dealt with tons of clients. I never install a stereo and ask if someone can tell that sensitivity difference. The don't care, they just want what speaker sounds good to them! Again, MZ, I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this issue. You see, you are NEVER going to convince me that sensitivity ratings are useless. My EXPERIENCE says they are. End of story. mosfet, you put way too much emphasis on your experience without qualifying it. Your experience must fall in line with accepted science for it to be valid. Your experience is valid, and important, but it is equally as important to understand why and what you experienced. Les |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
"MOSFET" wrote in message ... I work in the pro sound field for a living and can tell you that I have compared low sensitive stuff to high sensitive and the results were not in line with what you are telling me. So who's experiences were right? Les I'm not going to play the "I do this for a living game so I'm right". I'm sure everyone is very impressed with your credentials. MOSFET You asked for personal experiences. I work in that field every day, using different speakers, different arrangements, and different specs. I am prefacing when and where and how often, and the circumstances I experience these things and you get all ****y about it. You asked for personal experience and I gave that to you, what's your problem? I think it is important to know the circumstances and frequency of the experience. My experiences do not fall in line with yours, and since you say that personal experience is irrefutable, then tell me who is right? We cannot have differing observations is each one is irrefutable. Les |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
MZ, you know, I think this whole thread has gotten way too heated and way
off base. I AM NOT an EE. I am NOT an installer. There are MANY in this group who, I'm sure, have much more experience than me. I am not an expert in anything EXCEPT (and this is the important part) what I have done and seen. I'm really not saying this to brag, but I didn't just fall off the turnip truck when it comes to this, however. I've been on this newsgroup on and off for ten years giving advice (using different names), I've competed (and won!) local IASCA competitions, I worked at Phoenix Gold in 2000-2001, and I have installed many systems for myself and friends. The ONLY point I ever tried to make here was that I have, indeed, observed that sensitivity specifications were helpful (to me) in predicting how loud a speaker will play. That's it! I'm not saying that all sensitivity ratings are right. Maybe I'm completely wrong. This is JUST what I observed. I didn't mean for this to become a huge war of words. I just feel like I have used enough speakers over the last 20 years to offer this perspective. Again, maybe it is wrong. Now come on, let's all kiss and make up MOSFET |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
My experiences do not fall in line with yours, and since you say that personal experience is irrefutable, then tell me who is right? We cannot have differing observations is each one is irrefutable. Neither is right!!!! You're just not getting what I'm saying! I'm NOT FRICKI'N SAYING I'M RIGHT! Geez, this isn't about right and wrong. And I meant my OBSERVATIONS are irrifutable. If I see a blue plane, you can't say to me "no you didn't". Maybe the plane was really pink, but MY observations (perceptions even) cannot be challanged, though they can be wrong. I'm saying this is what I have observed. That's all. Take it or leave it. MOSFET |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
But I think you're making a
mistake when you try to extend your own personal observations to all speakers. I have NEVER said that my experience can be applied to all speakers, in fact, I have no idea what I might have said that gave you that idea. In fact, that is preciesly the point I have been trying to make. In the world of car audio speakers, I have used only a handful. I only intended to share MY experiences. When you say that the sensitivity rating matters, and I point out to you that it doesn't, you counter with your own personal observations from a "handful" of speakers. My explanation, however, was all-encompassing. It deals with speakers in general, and how there's more to the story of SPL than mere sensitivity ratings at 1 watt, 1 meter, and 1kHz. It is YOU who is extending your conclusions to ALL sensitivity ratings. You said they are all meaningless. Have you annalyzed how EVERY speaker manufactureer measures their sensitivity? I doubt it. It's not necessary. I'll just refer to the standard that you brought up earlier in the thread, and assume that a good portion of the manufacturers use that "standard". Well, that standard does not tell the whole story. In fact, sensitivity in and of itself does not give us the information necessary to predict which speaker is going to play louder - that is, unless we're talking about which speaker is going to play 1 watt 1kHz tones louder from 1 meter away on-axis. Again, we are going in circles but like I have said I just don't think you can make a statement like all sensitivity ratings are useless and should be ignored. That's what got me going on this in the first place. That presumes you know EVERYTHING about how EVERY manufacturerer measures their speakers sensitivity. I know, I know, BA doen't play by the rules and I'm sure many others don't as well, it just seems to me it is best to stick to what you know for sure. For instance, maybe BA measures their sensitivity differently, but maybe the results are usefull in comparing BA speakers to other speakers. Could this be possible? Do you know? If so, THIS is the kind of information I find useful, personal observations. I don't understand what you're getting at. How could BA be making their speakers easier to compare to others by using a different testing methodology than the others? Again, MZ, I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this issue. You see, you are NEVER going to convince me that sensitivity ratings are useless. My EXPERIENCE says they are. End of story. Hopefully others reading this will come to the decision themselves - do they side with the person who provides an explanation and examples, or do they side with the person who doesn't? Others can make up their own mind about whether or not a subwoofer's rating while measured at 1 watt and 1kHz is relevant. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Hopefully others reading this will come to the decision themselves - do
they side with the person who provides an explanation and examples, or do they side with the person who doesn't? Others can make up their own mind about whether or not a subwoofer's rating while measured at 1 watt and 1kHz is relevant. I don't care who readers agree with or not! Man, this is just NOT about who is right or wrong. I simply stated what I have observed. Take it or leave it. I don't care. I'm not trying to "win" here. MOSFET |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Hopefully others reading this will come to the decision themselves - do
they side with the person who provides an explanation and examples, or do they side with the person who doesn't? Others can make up their own mind about whether or not a subwoofer's rating while measured at 1 watt and 1kHz is relevant. On second thought, you're right. A reader would have to decide who is wrong or right. So, again for my part, I am 37 years old and have used dozens of speakers (I listed the brands on a previous post) and I have found that sensitivity ratings are a GENERAL guide to how loud a speaker will sound when driven by a particular source. You say that sensitivity specs don't matter (I guess manufactureers provide those specs just for the hell of it?) because some companies measure differently, a meaasurment at 1kHz is meaningless when evaluating subs, etc. In the imortal words of Bill O'Reilly, we'll let the folks decide. MOSFET |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Hopefully others reading this will come to the decision themselves - do
they side with the person who provides an explanation and examples, or do they side with the person who doesn't? Others can make up their own mind about whether or not a subwoofer's rating while measured at 1 watt and 1kHz is relevant. I don't care who readers agree with or not! Man, this is just NOT about who is right or wrong. I simply stated what I have observed. Take it or leave it. I don't care. I'm not trying to "win" here. No one's trying to win. A clarification of the issue is important though. Basic google searches on car audio issues almost always bring up these sorts of threads (usually web sites that link to usenet). So someone who may be interested to know how much stock to put into sensitivity ratings will probably want to know the answer. The fact that you've posted your observations is helpful, but your initial assertion that sensitivity ratings are reliable indicators for how loud a speaker will sound is not. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
snip
You say that sensitivity specs don't matter (I guess manufactureers provide those specs just for the hell of it?) Pretty much, yeah. Manufacturers provide a lot of ratings for things. Boss provides power output ratings for their amplifiers. Do you consider those ratings reliable? What about in comparison with Phoenix Gold's ratings? What about tweeters that claim 100 watt power handling ability (which usually refers to the broadband power content of an unfiltered signal before being filtered)? Most amplifier manufacturers provide damping factor ratings, but it's been demonstrated time and time again that it's a meaningless spec (anything greater than about 10 or 20 can't be distinguished from 500). Ditto for slew rate specs and a whole list of others. So yeah, I consider these ratings to be worthless because they don't give us any information about the amplifier. Only power ratings are useful in that it gives you some idea what the *relative* power output is between two amplifiers of the same line. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
MOSFET wrote:
You're just not getting what I'm saying! I'm NOT FRICKI'N SAYING I'M RIGHT! Geez, this isn't about right and wrong. And I meant my OBSERVATIONS are irrifutable. If I see a blue plane, you can't say to me "no you didn't". Maybe the plane was really pink, but MY observations (perceptions even) cannot be challanged, though they can be wrong. ANYTHING IS REFUTABLE Mosfet, take that irrrefutable statement out of your posts and there probably wont be any arguement... I see what your trying to say and I think irrefutable is the wrong word.. ANYTHING IS REFUTABLE!! Eddie Runner |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 12:39:34 -0500, "MZ"
wrote: Hopefully others reading this will come to the decision themselves - do they side with the person who provides an explanation and examples, or do they side with the person who doesn't? Others can make up their own mind about whether or not a subwoofer's rating while measured at 1 watt and 1kHz is relevant. I don't care who readers agree with or not! Man, this is just NOT about who is right or wrong. I simply stated what I have observed. Take it or leave it. I don't care. I'm not trying to "win" here. No one's trying to win. A clarification of the issue is important though. Basic google searches on car audio issues almost always bring up these sorts of threads (usually web sites that link to usenet). So someone who may be interested to know how much stock to put into sensitivity ratings will probably want to know the answer. The fact that you've posted your observations is helpful, but your initial assertion that sensitivity ratings are reliable indicators for how loud a speaker will sound is not. What if both speakers' sensitivity ratings are listed as being measured at one Watt, one meter, 1000 Hz? Would the specs be valid for comparison then, or would we assume that one or both manufacturers are simply lying outright? Scott |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
What if both speakers' sensitivity ratings are listed as being
measured at one Watt, one meter, 1000 Hz? Would the specs be valid for comparison then, or would we assume that one or both manufacturers are simply lying outright? I hesitate to use the word "lying", because I don't think there are very many manufacturers that would outright fabricate numbers. But there are a lot of variables at play, and you never know what they're doing exactly. Anyway, if the sensitivity ratings are accurate and the test is the same, then the sensitivity ratings will tell us...well, they'll tell us what the sensitivity of the speaker is at 1w, 1m, 1khz. They really won't tell us a whole lot more than that though. They won't tell us which one will be louder at 1m, 1kHz, because we don't know the impedance of the two speakers at 1kHz. But, even if we assume that the impedance is identical at 1kHz for both speakers, we don't know what the impedance and sensitivity plots as a function of frequency look like. Then, if we assume that the impedance and sensitivity plots are identical for both speakers, then we have some idea of what's going on at 1 watt, but we don't know what the effects of power compression are on each of them. My point is that there are too many variables at stake to be able to predict which speaker will play louder based on a single number. |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
You're just not getting what I'm saying! I'm NOT FRICKI'N SAYING I'M RIGHT! Geez, this isn't about right and wrong. And I meant my OBSERVATIONS are irrifutable. If I see a blue plane, you can't say to me "no you didn't". Maybe the plane was really pink, but MY observations (perceptions even) cannot be challanged, though they can be wrong. ANYTHING IS REFUTABLE Mosfet, take that irrrefutable statement out of your posts and there probably wont be any arguement... I see what your trying to say and I think irrefutable is the wrong word.. ANYTHING IS REFUTABLE!! Eddie Runner Yes, you are absolutely right. Irrifutable was a poor choice of words. I totally agree, anything is refutable. The point I was trying to make was that, to me, what someone personally observes or experiences is much more valuable and reliable (still not exactly the right word) than someone who gives advice based on something they HEARD or READ. But, of course, just because you observe something, doesn't mean you observed it accurately or that you are right. That's all I meant to say. MOSFET |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Seems like you really know a lot about the subject. But dang, if you
think about all that for every speaker I bet it takes you two years to decide on a pair.....just teasing! In the end, the speaker sounds good to a person or it doesn't. There are many "whys" but it still sounds good or it doesn't. If it sounds good and you can afford it...buy it, if it doesn't don't buy it. DA |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Les wrote: "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." So very very true. For many years I've relied on my ears and personal experiences to guide my way through my obsessive car stereo addiction. But in the last few years, in particular this past year, I've accelerated my "technical" understanding of the field and I've had to re-evaluate many of the things my ears and experiences have "taught" me. Using these two avenues of knowledge together has really changed my understanding. If I had it to do all over again I would have made it a point to learn the technical stuff from the get-go. Problem is, at least in my area, there's not a lot of other people to learn from and be inspired by. I've done it all by myself. Tony -- 2001 Nissan Maxima SE Anniversary Edition Eclipse CD8454 Head Unit, Phoenix Gold ZX475ti, ZX450 and ZX500 Amplifiers, Phoenix Gold EQ-232 30-Band EQ, Dynaudio System 360 Tri-Amped In Front and Focal 130HCs For Rear Fill, 2 Soundstream EXACT10s In Aperiodic Enclosure 2001 Chevy S10 ZR2 Pioneer DEH-P9600MP (Just gettin' started) |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
MOSFET wrote: "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." I've found that PG seems to be considerably and consistently better than a lot of other companies when giving honest ratings and measurements of their products. Hence, your employment experience in this field may be different than someone that works for another company. Tony -- 2001 Nissan Maxima SE Anniversary Edition Eclipse CD8454 Head Unit, Phoenix Gold ZX475ti, ZX450 and ZX500 Amplifiers, Phoenix Gold EQ-232 30-Band EQ, Dynaudio System 360 Tri-Amped In Front and Focal 130HCs For Rear Fill, 2 Soundstream EXACT10s In Aperiodic Enclosure 2001 Chevy S10 ZR2 Pioneer DEH-P9600MP (Just gettin' started) |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
MOSFET wrote: "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 Les wrote: "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." I would compare this to an amplifier's damping factor. I had a friend argue to the death that the reason his Arc Audio amplifiers were so damn good was because of their (outrageously) high DFs. I tried to explain to him over and over that a DF measurement is meaningless becuase there is no idustry standard (or baseline as Les states) of comparison. It's not that DF isn't a valid measurement, it's because each manufacturer chooses to measure it differently. It's like saying car "A" is faster than car "B", but car "C" is faster than the other two...but if each of the cars' speedometers are the only testing source and each is a little different than the other, then the comparison is useless. Now if you measured each cars' speed with the same speed measuring device then I would tend to believe a claim as to which car was indeed faster. Tony -- 2001 Nissan Maxima SE Anniversary Edition Eclipse CD8454 Head Unit, Phoenix Gold ZX475ti, ZX450 and ZX500 Amplifiers, Phoenix Gold EQ-232 30-Band EQ, Dynaudio System 360 Tri-Amped In Front and Focal 130HCs For Rear Fill, 2 Soundstream EXACT10s In Aperiodic Enclosure 2001 Chevy S10 ZR2 Pioneer DEH-P9600MP (Just gettin' started) |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
MOSFET wrote: "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." Actually, there are multiple exceptions to the hearsay rule in which it IS allowed in court. And yes, I CAN tell you didn't see or hear something you THOUGHT you saw or heard. Like when you're WRONG!! lol Tony -- 2001 Nissan Maxima SE Anniversary Edition Eclipse CD8454 Head Unit, Phoenix Gold ZX475ti, ZX450 and ZX500 Amplifiers, Phoenix Gold EQ-232 30-Band EQ, Dynaudio System 360 Tri-Amped In Front and Focal 130HCs For Rear Fill, 2 Soundstream EXACT10s In Aperiodic Enclosure 2001 Chevy S10 ZR2 Pioneer DEH-P9600MP (Just gettin' started) |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Tony, your conclusions are spot on and I think you have nicely summerized
the debate. I, too, in recent years have wanted to understand the "tech stuff" better. I guess the only thing you said that I would take issue with, is the ascertion that there is no standardized measurment for sensitivity. For the reputable companies (this is key), there is, 1 meter, 1 kHz, 2.8 volts(1 watt). Now Mark contends that this is useless unless all you listen to is 1 kHz test tones. I disagree. I find that for those companies that measure sensitivity this way, one does get a general idea of how loud a speaker will play when driven by a particualr source. Now maybe I'm wrong. I need to be very careful what I say here or I will touch off another thread-war. I'm not saying that Mark is wrong. When you look at all the speakers ever made, I have used a tiny, tiny fraction. But this is what my experience tells me. Take it, or leave it. MOSFET |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks MOSFET.
I can see both sides of the debate. I for one have NEVER looked at speaker sensitivity ratings as a guide for purchasing. Therefore, I have no actual practical experiences. But knowing a little about the industry, I am very leery of paying any attention to most specifications. I'm a HUGE fan of PG amps and I do pay attention to their specs because every source I've asked says they're fairly accurate. However, this is not the industry's norm. So whatever information I learn from studying PG amp specs is more than likely worthless if I start to compare them to other brands. I can only assume that SPL ratings are the same way. I think this "argument" has a lot to do with the fact that you believe (and rightly so) that sensitivy ratings, when always measured the same "should" be a good way of comparing speakers. What MZ and Les are saying (I believe) is that unless ALL of the manufacturers measure the SAME way, the spec is useless. You're saying that in your experience from the speakers you have used, you have heard perceptible differences in volume in those speakers respective to their SPL specs. Maybe you have. What no one's asked (I think) is how accurate are your ears over the course of time from one speaker brand to another to judge which one is louder relative to its SPL spec? In other words, if you have a 6.5" Diamond Audio and a 6.5" Alpine coaxial (same impedence) mounted in a sound board next to each other, and each received the exact same amount of power, and the Diamond's had a 86dB SPL rating and the Alpine had a 91dB SPL rating, then you "should" be able to hear that the Alpine's are 5dB louder, right? (let's assume for this example that both brands' SPL ratings were obtained used the same exact testing method) However, if you had the Diamond's in your car for 7 months and then switched to the Alpine's could you REALLY tell me you could hear that same 5dB difference as in the board example? I doubt it...there's too many variables that come into play in the real world vs. a sound board. I hope that made sense. Tony -- 2001 Nissan Maxima SE Anniversary Edition Eclipse CD8454 Head Unit, Phoenix Gold ZX475ti, ZX450 and ZX500 Amplifiers, Phoenix Gold EQ-232 30-Band EQ, Dynaudio System 360 Tri-Amped In Front and Focal 130HCs For Rear Fill, 2 Soundstream EXACT10s In Aperiodic Enclosure 2001 Chevy S10 ZR2 Pioneer DEH-P9600MP (Just gettin' started) |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
What MZ and Les are saying (I believe) is that unless ALL of the
manufacturers measure the SAME way, the spec is useless. Actually, just to clarify, with the sensitivity spec (unlike some of the other specs), it's not the uniform testing methodology that I'm concerned about, but rather that the measurement of a speaker's sensitivity at 1 watt and at 1kHz and at 1 meter doesn't provide us with enough information to be able to predict which speaker is going to play louder. But no, it doesn't help when companies like Boston Acoustics, and others I suppose, decide to make the measurement differently from everyone else. |
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 |