Print

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

[Mark McFarlane]

*sighs* the age old fight against web developers who insist on having the latest and greatest widgets and gizmos on their websites thus obsoleting perfectly good computers. ...

FWIW the Danley spec sheet isn't a web page, it's a pdf document. Blame Adobe for changing pdf too frequently.

[Ray Aberle]

FWIW the Danley spec sheet isn't a web page, it's a pdf document. Blame Adobe for changing pdf too frequently.

Which is my point. Forcing the world to constantly update. Like Flash, also an Adobe (now) product. My Powerbook G5 no longer will run it because they've updated it-- rather then let me not experience the best possible stuff, they just block it so it doesn't work *at all* until it's upgraded.

Ivan's reply said it was the version of Safari involved, as opposed to the file on their end. Of course, one also does not have to create a file using the absolute newest version of (insert PDF creation program of choice). But, since I am able to view PDF files in other places using the same system configuration, I consider that the only variable changing is the hosting website for the file-- either the file or the website is requiring higher versions of Safari.

/gonna keep ranting unless I stop now. lol

BACK TO THE SUBS!

[Spenser Hamilton]

Reading the posts to this thread indicates that there is enough passion to accomplish this.

I'm not so sure that passion is so strong outside of this community.

FWIW the Danley spec sheet isn't a web page, it's a pdf document. Blame Adobe for changing pdf too frequently.

I blame Adobe for most problems I encounter online actually :p


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[John Roberts {JR}]

This discussion has been enlightening to me in that specifications can be manipulated easily if there is a desire to do so.  I remember in the 70's there was controversy on power ratings on amplifiers until there was some agreement (I don't know if it was mandated) on using the RMS system.

It was actually the government (FTC) that mandated a more conservative amplifier power measurements back in the '70s including a 1/3 power pre-conditioning warm up that is all but archaic wrt modern amp designs.

JR

[Ivan Beaver]

It has already been done.

Common Loudspeaker Format: a.k.a. CLF
All the information you ever wanted to know about a loudspeaker in one easy to understand and comprehensive format.
You can learn more about it at their website: http://clfgroup.org/

However, you need to make it a requirement from your loudspeaker manufacturer.

Also newly available is Common Amplifier Format: a.k.a. CAF
Learn more about this at their website: http://cafgroup.org/
Demand that your amplifier manufacturers provide CAF documentation with their amplifiers.

2 problems there.  There are not many manufacturers (of pro gear) that have CLF data.

The next is that the manufacturers are free to put whatever numbers they want into it.

Yes the "format" is common-but the numbers can be anything.  I know of cases that the numbers are "stretched" quite a bit.

What needs (I doubt it ever will) to happen is strict regulations on how things are measured.

[John Roberts {JR}]

2 problems there.  There are not many manufacturers (of pro gear) that have CLF data.

I applaud them stepping up and developing a format.

The next is that the manufacturers are free to put whatever numbers they want into it.

True, but now it will be more obvious of some cheap POS claims spectacular numbers.

Yes the "format" is common-but the numbers can be anything.  I know of cases that the numbers are "stretched" quite a bit.

As I've said before why not name names of these "liars". If it's an honest mistake you have done them a service and they can clean up their numbers. If dishonest you helped the community by pointing them out (I appreciate this is easier to say than do). 

What needs (I doubt it ever will) to happen is strict regulations on how things are measured.

Please expand on that last one. I suspect they (CLP)  would be receptive to specific constructive advice about test procedures.

JR

[Ivan Beaver]

As I've said before why not name names of these "liars". If it's an honest mistake you have done them a service and they can clean up their numbers. If dishonest you helped the community by pointing them out (I appreciate this is easier to say than do).  Please expand on that last one. I suspect they (CLP)  would be receptive to specific constructive advice about test procedures.

JR

I cannot comment on this forum about other peoples specs-against forum rules.  So somebody else will have to comment.

And a lot of people would refuse to read and understand-because they "believe" the product-even if it can't possibly do what it says. 

A little bit of simple math goes a long ways--------------

Besides-it would have to be a number of posts------------

[Josh Millward]

2 problems there.  There are not many manufacturers (of pro gear) that have CLF data.

The next is that the manufacturers are free to put whatever numbers they want into it.

Yes the "format" is common-but the numbers can be anything.  I know of cases that the numbers are "stretched" quite a bit.

What needs (I doubt it ever will) to happen is strict regulations on how things are measured.

The point is that it has been done already.

The consumers of this gear need to demand this information from the manufacturers. Once they do, it will come.

Also, the consumers should demand that this information be from an independent third party, not the manufacturer's own in house "engi-marketing" department.

[Tom Roche]

2 problems there.  There are not many manufacturers (of pro gear) that have CLF data.

The next is that the manufacturers are free to put whatever numbers they want into it.

Yes the "format" is common-but the numbers can be anything.  I know of cases that the numbers are "stretched" quite a bit.

What needs (I doubt it ever will) to happen is strict regulations on how things are measured.

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.

[Ivan Beaver]

The point is that it has been done already.

The consumers of this gear need to demand this information from the manufacturers. Once they do, it will come.

But the consumers right now don't "demand" even the most basic of specs-such as a freq response graph-and they are quite happy with that.

I doubt they would "demand" a third party measure products.

And most manufacturers will resist others measuring their products-because they know what would "show up".

I support the idea however.

[ProSoundWeb Community]