My thinking on this is that it allows for a better comparison of apples to oranges: medium-sized vented, large tapped horns, and very large conventional horns could all be compared on a single metric of output to truck space.Ivan has mentioned most of the problems with trying for agreement, but even using a specific measuring protocol won't apply to all types of program material, power compression comes from heat, and voice coil heating depends on excursion and frequency, different program material can reveal different shortfalls in driver/cabinet combinations.
Any interest out there in something like this?
Ivan has mentioned most of the problems with trying for agreement, but even using a specific measuring protocol won't apply to all types of program material, power compression comes from heat, and voice coil heating depends on excursion and frequency, different program material can reveal different shortfalls in driver/cabinet combinations.Agreed. Something like a kick drum puts a very different demand on loudspeakers than say EDM.
I understand what you are discussing but I doubt its feasable so far as another spec listed on cutsheets from sales reps in the near future.I would argue that it is not just the "bottom feeders".
In a day and age where MI grade box makers are slapping 1000watt power handling ratings on anything and everything. If this did become a useable spec from the pro manufactures how long before the bottom feeders make it less menaingful?
I would argue that it is not just the "bottom feeders".
I guess you are just supposed to "believe" that the product will be fine for the job-----------
Just swallow this little pill with the kool aid and all will be fine-------------------
This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You take the blue pill - the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill - you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes.
--Morpheus, The Matrix(1999)
(http://i.imgur.com/CHLCTcO.gif)
But I wonder how many manufacturers would actually send in speakers to be measured-even if it was free.
As for the problem of stretching the truth on spec sheets, it's not really a technology problem at all... it's a human nature problem. I can't see any real solution outside of either making new laws, or having an industry-funded independent organization to do testing. The latter option seems more viable to me.
The truly sad thing to me-is that with a large number of products that are coming out (from the big guys) there is little to NO data. Not even simple spec numbers.
To be fair.... there are a number of new products on the market (including Danley) that are "different" enough and certainly more complex than the older solutions that they are aiming to replace that giving useful metrics to the user is easier said than done. This is especially true if a "laboratory" measurement doesn't actually spec out any better than the older technology it replaces. There are many improvements (that have a meaningful design rationale behind them) that are lacking modern metrics by which to measure them. And some things are just beyond the capability of most human minds to comprehend in a useful manner. But this is a different issue than just inflating numbers or using a spec that can somehow be justified (perhaps in the fine print) but is not reasonable for describing the device.Agreed-but there are also a lot of normal products from major manufacturers that have no data other than size and weight.
But I wonder how many manufacturers would actually send in speakers to be measured-even if it was free.Back in the days (1974-91) in the UK (and later the USA) there was a magazine called International Musician in which acoustician and engineer Ken Dibble ran proper tests on pro drivers but apparently 'there was much annoyance when he demonstrated the phoney manufacturers specs'. This was possibly the first time someone had called the manufacturers bluff and risked losing advertising. Notice how there are no reviewers actually measuring pro kit nowadays.
As for the problem of stretching the truth on spec sheets, it's not really a technology problem at all... it's a human nature problem. I can't see any real solution outside of either making new laws, or having an industry-funded independent organization to do testing. The latter option seems more viable to me.Even if you had one or more independent, industry funded testing organizations, what would prevent a manufacturer from doing their own testing or publishing whatever results they wanted? Some of the existing independent testing providers have tried implementing other test procedures and 'verified' results but it is still up to the manufacturers as to what they decide to publish and any results that do not benefit the manufacturers are unlikely to be published.