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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

Ok, then dont use any specs because they are all measured differently.
Everything is a lie. Just shoot yourself and get it over with.

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

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.

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

Pick what sounds nice to you. Thats it.

Well said (though MZ will probably find something wrong with that advice).


MOSFET

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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?

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

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...

"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

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

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?

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?

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.

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

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.

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..

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).

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

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.

"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

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