 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Car Audio / February 2005recommendations about speakers...
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 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 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. >> This is excellent advice. Really the only specification that should >matter [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >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 > 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? >> 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 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >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 > > This is excellent advice. Really the only specification that should > matter [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > 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 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 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.... > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > 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. > Sensitivity does matter. Sensitivity RATINGS, however, are inaccurate based > on the way that they're conducted. Do you think the 1kHz sensitivity rating [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 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 > OK, you're repeating yourself. ;) > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > 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? > Sensitivity does matter. Sensitivity RATINGS, however, are inaccurate based > on the way that they're conducted. Do you think the 1kHz sensitivity rating [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 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 > And just to really beat this thing into the ground.... > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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. > 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, [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > 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... > > I'm not sure why you don't care about the "tech stuff" though. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 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 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 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 [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > 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? 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 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 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. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > 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. > > 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. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 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 > 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 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 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. :) >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 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >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 > 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 > Oh, geez, here we go again.... > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > 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. 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 > 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 > But I think you're making a > > mistake when you try to extend your own personal observations to all [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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. > 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 > > Hopefully others reading this will come to the decision themselves - do > they [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 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. >> > Hopefully others reading this will come to the decision themselves - do >> they [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >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 > 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. 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 > 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 <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. > > 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. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > 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 > If there is not baseline, or standard for the measurement of the > > spec then it becomes virtually meaningless. It is entirely possible for 2 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 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 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 > I work in the pro sound field for a living > > and can tell you that I have compared low sensitive stuff to high [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > 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 pissy 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 > 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 > 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. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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 > > 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. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > 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 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  Signature2001 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) 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 Signature2001 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) 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 Signature2001 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) 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 Signature2001 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) 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 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 Signature2001 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) > 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. > 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 bullshit disguised as tech stuff... Any advantage * real or percieved* can lead to more sales.. to the manufacturers thats what its all about.. Ok, then dont use any specs because they are all measured differently. Everything is a lie. Just shoot yourself and get it over with. > 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. 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 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 ????? > Good evening to all, > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > 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: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > 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???? >> So, according with all the feedback I've received, I suppose that with >> two [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > needs. Of course, there'd be no reason to intentionally go after a set of > speakers that can't handle as much power. 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. > Pick what sounds nice to you. Thats it. Well said (though MZ will probably find something wrong with that advice). ;) MOSFET > 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? 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? You guys are all newbies to me.... ha ha ha > 7 years? I 've been posting to this newgroup for well over 10 years now > (under various names). > 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. > 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 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 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 h |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message