Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Ivan Beaver]

Perhaps there's an opportunity to start a non-profit org much like Underwriters Laboratories to objectively test manufacturers' speakers (and amps) and provide the results.  Establish standards, be consistent, generate an accurate "apples-to-apples" comparison.

Would this be law-before the product could be sold? Or simply voluntary?

I highly doubt many manfacturers would send product to the tested and the results shown to everybody-unless it REQUIRED.

The "general public" doesn't seem to care-they just believe anything somebody tells them-without even thinking if it makes sense

[John Roberts {JR}]

Perhaps there's an opportunity to start a non-profit org much like Underwriters Laboratories to objectively test manufacturers' speakers (and amps) and provide the results.  Establish standards, be consistent, generate an accurate "apples-to-apples" comparison.

There already are for profit test labs and if the consumers demanded/rewarded it they would be more widely used. As mentioned the government and FTC got involved back in the '70s when they judged consumers too ignorant to sort through the ridiculous power claims (fools and their money). In my judgement the 1/3 power pre-conditioning test standard increased transformers and heat sink size in many low cost products that the consumers didn't want or need.  There are often subjective judgements involved in establishing objective standards.   

For example in the CLF power amp spec they describe a burst test with a specific duty cycle (20 mSec on-480 mSec off). I actually kind of like that burst test. It mimics an old IHF test IIRC, and I've used it before, but that duty cycle will not be exactly representative of every musical genre.. That said if all amps are tested to the same duty cycle standard they can be compared. While I suspect these results will be as mis-applied as existing test standards.

JR
 
Note: I designed an amp capable of several dB of burst power back in the '80s and the 20mSec on/480mSec off duty cycle reduced my peak power from close to 150W for a single cycle burst to 100W clean for the full 20mSec burst (twice a second). FWIW I called that amp 100W peak because that's how I roll. 

[Tom Roche]

There already are for profit test labs...

It may need to be a non-profit, much like UL, to mitigate undue influence.

[Ivan Beaver]

 
Note: I designed an amp capable of several dB of burst power back in the '80s and the 20mSec on/480mSec off duty cycle reduced my peak power from close to 150W for a single cycle burst to 100W clean for the full 20mSec burst (twice a second). FWIW I called that amp 100W peak because that's how I roll. 

The difference is between what looks good on a spec sheet or marketing brochure and what is usable.

I am like you, and would much rather take the conservative approach and make sure that others can duplicate the results-rather than present unusable "fancy" numbers.

But those are harder to sell-since many people do not want reality-they want some "fantasy" numbers that impress them and they can talk about-------------

[Ivan Beaver]

It may need to be a non-profit, much like UL, to mitigate undue influence.

So how many people in our business would buy a speaker because it had a specific "tag" vs something that is cheaper and give large false numbers?

I would argue that price is the major driving force.  Except for installs where certain "tags" are expected.

This would a long slow process and the major players would have to "get on board" with it for the average person to take notice.

But what is in it for them?  Especially if the numbers they "want" don't show up on the tests?  Why lose sales over something that the average person doesn't care about?

[John Roberts {JR}]

It may need to be a non-profit, much like UL, to mitigate undue influence.

You have a pretty low opinion of professional test engineers. It's not like they are politicians. 

I can not imagine an independent test lab that could be bought off, and risk losing the business from every other customer...

IMO most bad specs are due to ignorance or misunderstandings not active cognizant malfeasance, while It probably does happen.

JR

 

[Tom Roche]

You have a pretty low opinion of professional test engineers. It's not like they are politicians. 

I can not imagine an independent test lab that could be bought off, and risk losing the business from every other customer...

IMO most bad specs are due to ignorance or misunderstandings not active cognizant malfeasance, while It probably does happen.

JR

My opinion of test engineers is not the issue.  Ivan routinely laments the fact that various audio companies massage the specs to make their products appear better.  If true, then it might be considered a form of deception.  If he or anyone wants objectivity, then an independent lab must operate in a way that minimizes or eliminates any potential undue influence.  Otherwise, they'll end up being another Julian Hirsch at Stereo Review, essentially giving decent reviews to the hands that feed you.

Look, I don't give a rats tushy if anything happens that leads to some standard for speaker and/or amp specs.  Ultimately—for me anyway—it's the sound that matters, followed by reliability, support and cost.

[Ivan Beaver]

My opinion of test engineers is not the issue.  Ivan routinely laments the fact that various audio companies massage the specs to make their products appear better.  If true, then it might be considered a form of deception.  If he or anyone wants objectivity, then an independent lab must operate in a way that minimizes or eliminates any potential undue influence.  Otherwise, they'll end up being another Julian Hirsch at Stereo Review, essentially giving decent reviews to the hands that feed you.

Look, I don't give a rats tushy if anything happens that leads to some standard for speaker and/or amp specs.  Ultimately—for me anyway—it's the sound that matters, followed by reliability, support and cost.

The question is-what are specs good for?  Yes it is the sound that matters=but sound quality does not show up on the spec sheet.

But what the spec sheet DOES DO (or at least SHOULD DO) is to give an idea of the suitability of a product for a particular job.

It does not matter how good it sounds-if it does not get loud enough or cover the intended audience area.

The specs SHOULD give a realistic idea of how loud the product can get-covering a specific freq range and a particular area.

Once you have narrowed down the list of candidates to products that can do the job-THEN you start to listen for sound quality.

In my opinion starting with sound quality is the wrong way to choose a product.

Most headphones sound pretty good-but they are limited in how many people that can hear them-so that kinda rules them out for an audience of any size-ALTHOUGH they sound good---------

First things first.

So how is this "lab" going to be funded?  I would LOVE to have a standardized labs that ALL products would be measured in the same way/conditions etc.

But our industry is simply to small for that to happen-I think.  But it IS a good idea.

But then again the buying public has to actually CARE and understand the results-which sadly most of them simply do not. 

It is more about bragging rights than any actual performance

[John Rutirasiri]

I have a handful of TH118's and JTR Orbit Shifters in inventory.  Use them for outdoor festivals and indoor corporate gigs.  You can't go wrong with either one -- two of the best high output portable (one-man handling) subs available.  Absolutely trouble-free.  Super tight, punchy, musical.  Having come from JBL SRX728S and Grundorf GT3600, the TH118 and OS run circles around them in sheer output and sound quality.

8 of either one provides ample foundation for smaller street festivals.  Indoor, I honestly need 2 for a 20000 sq ft ballroom, possible 4 if DJ plugs in to FOH.

If you're anywhere near Chicago, stop by and I'd be glad to A/B them for you.

[ProSoundWeb Community]