Bullshit claims for PC speakers

Recently went looking for a set of PC speakers for a freind and was starkly reminded of the rampant bullshit people print about speakers.

On this particular quest I spotted......

Speakers 4" high claiming 200W Speakers that ran off a 12V mains adaptor claiming 650W But best of all, a set that ran PURELY from USB power....300W

The best I ever saw was a set that cost £29.99, were 6" height with tiny subwoofer (bout 8" on a side with a 4" driver).

Go on, guess.

FUCKING TWO FUCKING THOUSAND FUCKING FOUR FUCKING HUNDRED FUCKING WATTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am quite sure there are plenty of people here who know this....but in the REAL world, 2400W of sound is 2 or 4 speakers so big it needs two people to pick them up, plus an enormous fan cooled amplifier weighing more than Wales. Oh and you can move the decimal point in £29.99 2 places right and double the result for a reasonable cost estimate.

WATT the FUCK?

I mean really, if you can put 6W (about what most PC USB ports are happy with) in and get 300W out of the speakers....you're MAKING 294 Watts, so you could easily place a transducer in front of the speakers and recover more than the 6W you supplied......we could power the world for free. I think it's called perpetual motion, and it's bullshit.

How can people get away with this, bring back the trades descriptions act.

Hum I knew that amp manufacturers often use peak power rather than real watts or RMS output, but even at peak power those speaker claims seem overly optimistic.

NOOLigan wrote: Hum I knew that amp manufacturers often use peak power rather than real watts or RMS output, but even at peak power those speaker claims seem overly optimistic.

Peak power output cannot exceed input power, a fundamental law of physics. And the comercial version of peak Vs RMS is bunkum too. RMS is usually, give or take, in and around 70% of peak, so a 70W RMS amp, should peak at 100, not 49KW ;)

Doctor? wrote:

NOOLigan wrote: Hum I knew that amp manufacturers often use peak power rather than real watts or RMS output, but even at peak power those speaker claims seem overly optimistic.

Peak power output cannot exceed input power, a fundamental law of physics. And the comercial version of peak Vs RMS is bunkum too. RMS is usually, give or take, in and around 70% of peak, so a 70W RMS amp, should peak at 100, not 49KW ;)

Are you sure about this? I'm sure I've seen 50 watt RMS amps advertised as almost 400 (peak) watt amps.

I have no argument that you can't get more out of something than you input.

Not entirely sure. Will check.

From Wikipedia

"For a pure sine wave, the peak voltage is 1.414 x RMS voltage"

So I wasn't far off. Music being nothing but lots of sine waves of course.

Oooh, pretty! Steve, I think you should use graphs to illustrate all the technical points you make - even they don't help me understand, they look nice...

Snorri xxx

Snorrimon wrote: Oooh, pretty! Steve, I think you should use graphs to illustrate all the technical points you make - even they don't help me understand, they look nice...

Snorri xxx

Well it does show that more complex waveforms can have lower RMS values relative to peak, approaching 50% for the triangle wave (a synthetic only wave shape). But Ron's example still sounds extreme, especially since no one in their right mind would bench speakers or amps with high harmonic content waveforms.

Doctor? wrote:

Snorrimon wrote: Oooh, pretty! Steve, I think you should use graphs to illustrate all the technical points you make - even they don't help me understand, they look nice...

Snorri xxx

Well it does show that more complex waveforms can have lower RMS values relative to peak, approaching 50% for the triangle wave (a synthetic only wave shape). But Ron's example still sounds extreme, especially since no one in their right mind would bench speakers or amps with high harmonic content waveforms.

Nope... Try it again with a pie-chart...

Snorri xxx

Watched that two part drama 'Britz' last night on demand.Gripping stuff , great acting , thought provoking and an insight into how the muslims in UK are treated in the "war on terror".And she flicks the switch at the end!!!

johnny wrote: Watched that two part drama 'Britz' last night on demand.Gripping stuff , great acting , thought provoking and an insight into how the muslims in UK are treated in the "war on terror".And she flicks the switch at the end!!! fcukin ell!!! bye bye Canary Warf which can't be a bad thing eh?

so that was 2400v through Canary Wharf, or are you in the wrong thread Johnny?

apoligies, edited.course i didn't mean it.was just in the same spirit as kershies "not enough" quip a few weeks back on the Spooks thread when Al said "but how many times can London get attacked?"

Sorry for mentioning it on this thread it's just my mind always wanders to more pressing concerns when Cambo get's technical

what the

just as long as my kenwood speakers don't crackle i'm happy.

El Jarvo wrote:

johnny wrote: apoligies, edited.course i didn't mean it.was just in the same spirit as kershies "not enough" quip a few weeks back on the Spooks thread when Al said "but how many times can London get attacked?"

No worries.

Sore subject, I s'pose. For those of us who live/work in London.

Peace.

C'mon, we all know London can survive anything.

Doctor? wrote:

Snorrimon wrote: Oooh, pretty! Steve, I think you should use graphs to illustrate all the technical points you make - even they don't help me understand, they look nice...

Snorri xxx

Well it does show that more complex waveforms can have lower RMS values relative to peak, approaching 50% for the triangle wave (a synthetic only wave shape). But Ron's example still sounds extreme, especially since no one in their right mind would bench speakers or amps with high harmonic content waveforms.

Max wattage only means that the speakers' construction can last to that wattage for a millisecond before blowing....doesn't have anything to do with the speakers actual ability to produce sound with the input...

EdelBrock wrote:

Doctor? wrote:

Snorrimon wrote: Oooh, pretty! Steve, I think you should use graphs to illustrate all the technical points you make - even they don't help me understand, they look nice...

Snorri xxx

Well it does show that more complex waveforms can have lower RMS values relative to peak, approaching 50% for the triangle wave (a synthetic only wave shape). But Ron's example still sounds extreme, especially since no one in their right mind would bench speakers or amps with high harmonic content waveforms.

Max wattage only means that the speakers' construction can last to that wattage for a millisecond before blowing....doesn't have anything to do with the speakers actual ability to produce sound with the input...

No, we're talking about powered speakers, and these figures are listed as their output. As I said, if you can get 600W out from 10W you've solved all humanities energy problems.

You have any of these sites so I could see what yer talking about acually? Is this an ebay ripoff or an actual company stating these things?

EdelBrock wrote: You have any of these sites so I could see what yer talking about acually? Is this an ebay ripoff or an actual company stating these things?

Just hit any retailer, online or otherwise. And look for PC speakers, USB or audio connected, and you will see the bullshit.

I know it's always been legal to bullshit in ads in the US, but it USED to be against the law here, not any more though.

Logitech z-2300

Total RMS power: 200 watts RMS Satellites: 80 watts RMS (40 watts x 2) Subwoofer: 120 watts RMS Total peak power: 400 watts Frequency response: 35 Hz–20 kHz Signal-to-noise ratio @ 1 kHz: >100 dB Amplifier: Ultra-linear, high-capacity analog

Klipsch ProMedia

frequency response 50Hz-20kHz +/-5dB power handling 30 watts total: 15 watts x 2 channels maximum acoustic output 100 dB SPL max acoustic output 100 dB SPL nominal impedance 3 ohms tweeter 1” metalized polymer high frequency horn MicroTractrix™ Horn woofer Dual 2.5” metalized, fiber-composite cones with powerful neodymium magnets and 1" voice coils amplifier High efficiency class-D enclosure type Tuned port input connections 3.5 mm stereo jacks outputs 3.5 mm stereo headphone output inputs Line input; auxiliary input dimensions 10.5” H x 3.25” W x 6.5” D
weight 7.5 lbs features Auxiliary input, headphone output, bass level control finishes Black or Silver voltage 120v
export voltage 230v built from 2004

Again, this is like I said prior....but I see the confusion. RMS (root mean square) is what you are explaining it as, but its a misued term in the electronics industry.....so mathematically you are correct, but the industry markets the term to discuss the max power that speaker can handle for one milisecond before blowing...it doesn't mean that that speaker could ever reach that potential from the input given.....

its really bad marketing that has never been fixed....

Watt?

BIGINOIL wrote: Watt?

I made that joke already.

That's a £40 spot fine.

EdelBrock wrote: Again, this is like I said prior....but I see the confusion. RMS (root mean square) is what you are explaining it as, but its a misued term in the electronics industry.....so mathematically you are correct, but the industry markets the term to discuss the max power that speaker can handle for one milisecond before blowing...it doesn't mean that that speaker could ever reach that potential from the input given.....

its really bad marketing that has never been fixed....

Partly, but mainly what I'm on about is folks saying you can get 300W out of a USB port. Regardless of their use of a dodgy RMS vs Peak relationship.....if a USB port can only supply, let's be generous, 20W (you will melt your USB controller with 20W in reality I'd say), you can only ever produce 20W on the output, it's just the way it is.

It's not JUST online, I once had a guy in a high street moron-fleecing emporium tell me "there are 200W RMS" while I was looking at the spec on the little silver plate near the mains input that said "total power consumption 18W".

Doctor? wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: Again, this is like I said prior....but I see the confusion. RMS (root mean square) is what you are explaining it as, but its a misued term in the electronics industry.....so mathematically you are correct, but the industry markets the term to discuss the max power that speaker can handle for one milisecond before blowing...it doesn't mean that that speaker could ever reach that potential from the input given.....

its really bad marketing that has never been fixed....

Partly, but mainly what I'm on about is folks saying you can get 300W out of a USB port. Regardless of their use of a dodgy RMS vs Peak relationship.....if a USB port can only supply, let's be generous, 20W (you will melt your USB controller with 20W in reality I'd say), you can only ever produce 20W on the output, it's just the way it is.

It's not JUST online, I once had a guy in a high street moron-fleecing emporium tell me "there are 200W RMS" while I was looking at the spec on the little silver plate near the mains input that said "total power consumption 18W".

I know what you f'ing mean. Same shit with car enthusists....they keep talking to me how thier 4 cylinder honda civic has 900 hp, simply by changing a chip, and putting on (get this) a turbo AND a supercharger.......

This is also impossible by the laws of physics, as horsepower NEEDS displacement, small cylinders only can put out a maximum, and its no where near 900 hp. Not to mention you wouldn't put on a turbo and a supercharger on the same vehicle! (found out later they meant this stupid little fan that goes above thier intake, that supposidely blows air in)

Another dude claimed that his uncle had a'street legal' 60's mustang with a 289 had 1200 hp...but could cause it ran on alcohol

Its f'ing hard to get a 1:1 ratio of hp:Cu in....but yet these idiots can get 300% with a couple bolt ons....really ticks me off on these claims when I work hard to get 432 hp from my 455.......

well with cars you CAN do it (to an extent) because RPM comes into it, the faster the engine moves, the more times the limited cylinders burn their fuel. but road cars are rev-limited (actually all engines are these days, but road cars are usually limited to 7-9KRPM, probably less in the US with the penchant for big torquey V8's)

Hence a 2.4L V8 (150 ish CuI) can provide ~800HP....when it revs at 19000RPM like an f1 engine.

There is SOME sense to the supercharger+turbo thing, it eliminates turbo lag, it's been done on a few sports cars, and rally cars, but it's generally considered more trouble than it's worth....and THAT's on competition machines, never mind road cars.

As for the chip....well I know that certain cars (some cameros for instance) ARE built with stupid race engines, that are then fitted with "road" chips which limit them. But that is tuning out horsies they were built with. Sticking the "race" chip in a standard low-end Camero, will give you a few more mules, and decimate your engine.

Most car modders, are of course totally full of shite about such things. Eg.... you have 900hp? how do you put that on the road with road tyres....ans: you don't.

You guys are something of a joke over here in terms of the power you get from engines. I've seen US vehicles with 8l V8's with about 300HP...HOW? European and Japanese makers can get 300HP from a thimble ;) Actually I belive you lots have just topped the Bugati Veron with a road car containing like 1300 BHP....that's actually in the area of a mid 80's turbo F1 car!!!!

Actually, the reverse is also the case.... F1 engine=800HP=$100million development budget and $1M build cost. A NASCAR engine=700HP=$10K and a cylinder reamer. I supppose they save money by only designing them to turn one way too :)

I'm off tonight, so at some point I will browse around and find some deeply bullshit speakers to post.

Well you are forgetting compression is needed for ALOT of the the things you mentioned above. Is it possible to put on a turbo and supercharger, I guess, but the compression would be through the roof....same with a 4 cylinder and many of the other things stated. Higher compression needs higher octane, and 96 just ain't gonna cut it...hell race gas won't either...to deal with this much compression would require so much engine rebulding..not to mention a caste iron block wouldn't be the way to go....let alone the heads.

Rpms that high also cut into the lubrication cycle....normal engines aren't designed to rev that high and would throw a bearing quickly...even Jap cars. The metalurgy required is not something you buy at your local autoparts store.....if there is anything I've learned, if you want to go fast, you have to pay out the ass....there is no cheap way around it....if you upgrade one part, you have to make sure they match with everything else...

..yet so many just add the hp that the packaging 'rate' itself as....

One dude actually wanted to explain how a coffee can sized tailpipe tip gave him 15 horsepower! Which is completely ludicruis, because all the pressure build up is lost after the first 8 feet exhaust length. Tips mean shit.