Get real, the hardware of both of these devices are miniature USB soundcards with handy alligator clips or banana jacks and an internal series resistor. You've been able to do the same with a 'normal' soundcard, some software, a resistor and a pile of wires and connectors for ages before WT2.
That said my WT3 is a darn handy USB soundcard with alligator clips on it with decent software that I use to measure woofers and inductors with great ease and no problems if you follow 2 simple rules:
1) make sure the volume is jacked up
2) give WinXP a little bit of time after you plug it in so it can fart around with the device drivers before you fire up the WT3 software.
Hi vacuphile,
In your example you are citing "Coca Cola" which is a registered trademark with all the protections that affords. The situation with WT2 and WT3 is different because neither "WT2" nor "Woofer Tester" are trademarked. In my experience the trademark office would almost certainly reject "Woofer Tester" for being merely descriptive. Even if the word "WT2" were trademarked almost certainly the trademark office would also allow "WT3" as a separate distinct trademark. But there are no trademarks or applications for either "woofer tester" or "WT2".
IP is not an issue in this discussion. WT2 and WT3 are simply competitive products. Let's skip the legal stuff, it's not an issue.
Regards,
John
Not having ever used either (and both being hobbled by Windows-only won't likely) in my mind the biggest objection is PE's use of the name woofer-tester 3, implying that it is a development on the original (WT & WT2) and illegitamitely benefiting from all the market development done by Smith & Larson.
There may be nothing illegal (or even if grounds for, nothing that anybody but the lawyers would benefit from), but PE should have given it a distinct name, and certainly not tagged it with v3 because it is a v1.
dave
dave,
Think of it as a generational reference. Sort of like a phone. You know, 3G, 4G, 5G etc. The WT3 is the next generation woofer tester after WT2. The WT3 is a hundred times faster and has 1000 times higher resolution than the WT2. When someone has a woofer tester that is a hundred times faster and has 1000 times higher resolution than the WT3 they have probably earned the right to call it a WT4 device.
dave, I think your comment accusing PE of "illegitamitely benefiting from all the market development done by Smith & Larson" has no basis in fact and is off base for a moderator of this forum.
Regards,
John
Hello lovers of testing loudspeakers
I am Brian, the inventor of the original DOS-based Woofer Tester. I sold some original WTs myself and then PE sold my WT and our WT2 until they decided to make and sell a WT3.
Keith is my business partner and he brains behind the WT2 and Speaker Tester and Woofer Tester Pro.
The following are observations and my opinion.
In my opinion the WT3 is about a 98% hardware copy of the WT2. In fact you can run the WT3 software on a WT2. The results are horrible but the software runs. You can run WT2 software V1.0 on a WT3. Again the results are horrible but the software runs. We fixed this "leak" as soon as we found out the WT3 uses the WT2 hardware.
I agree with previous posters about the naming of our respective products.
We publish a paper on accuracy on our site woofertester.com. The error in finding Fs and Qt for the WT2 is less than 1%. I ran the same test on a WT3 and the average error was 66% for 10 trials. Your results may vary.
We have a professional customer with PhDs in Math and Physics who owns Leap/LMS and CLIO. After he started using a WT2 he stopped using his LMS and CLIO for testing loudspeakers. He was our first WT Pro customer. His company now owns and uses 2 WT Pros. He states that the WT2 is the most repeatable and most accurate speaker testing device available and a bargain at our price.
We believe that no device in our space is more repeatable nor more accurate than a WT2.
I would be happy to personally show up for a bake-off moderated by a competent & honest 3rd party to show what is what and who is who.
Our software is copyrighted. We believe our software is better than every other tester's software and have published how to verify that for yourself. The hardware is nothing without software that produces repeatable and accurate results. You can own the best for $159.95. How much are you spending for drivers and boxes and crossover components? It is worth it to own the best.
/* End Sermon*/
I am Brian, the inventor of the original DOS-based Woofer Tester. I sold some original WTs myself and then PE sold my WT and our WT2 until they decided to make and sell a WT3.
Keith is my business partner and he brains behind the WT2 and Speaker Tester and Woofer Tester Pro.
The following are observations and my opinion.
In my opinion the WT3 is about a 98% hardware copy of the WT2. In fact you can run the WT3 software on a WT2. The results are horrible but the software runs. You can run WT2 software V1.0 on a WT3. Again the results are horrible but the software runs. We fixed this "leak" as soon as we found out the WT3 uses the WT2 hardware.
I agree with previous posters about the naming of our respective products.
We publish a paper on accuracy on our site woofertester.com. The error in finding Fs and Qt for the WT2 is less than 1%. I ran the same test on a WT3 and the average error was 66% for 10 trials. Your results may vary.
We have a professional customer with PhDs in Math and Physics who owns Leap/LMS and CLIO. After he started using a WT2 he stopped using his LMS and CLIO for testing loudspeakers. He was our first WT Pro customer. His company now owns and uses 2 WT Pros. He states that the WT2 is the most repeatable and most accurate speaker testing device available and a bargain at our price.
We believe that no device in our space is more repeatable nor more accurate than a WT2.
I would be happy to personally show up for a bake-off moderated by a competent & honest 3rd party to show what is what and who is who.
Our software is copyrighted. We believe our software is better than every other tester's software and have published how to verify that for yourself. The hardware is nothing without software that produces repeatable and accurate results. You can own the best for $159.95. How much are you spending for drivers and boxes and crossover components? It is worth it to own the best.
/* End Sermon*/
Those are all generations of Apple and relate to Apple's phones and no other manufacturers. So their is no confusion.
But that implies it is a 3rd generation of Smith & Larson product, whereas it is 1st generation PE product. Regardless of its actual performance.
That is backed up somewhat by the earlier posting that 4 out of 8 people thinking they were getting a rev of the S+L product.
If you don't see the little cop hat, i am just another member.
dave
I would disagree. The WT2 does many more things that the WT3 does not do. The WT2 measures inductors and capacitors extremely accurately. The WT2 aligns boxes. The WT2 measures Fs and Qt of tweeters.
The speed of the WT3 is one reason why the WT3 accuracy is not as good as the WT2. (just my opinion backed up by measurements). We have this fast test in the WT Pro. Its useful for fast production testing for compliance to a golden standard. It is not a good test for Fs/Qt for building a box. We do not offer the fast test in the WT2 because the test we use is the best. The extra 2 minutes that the WT2 uses is well worth the time. Our results are provably accurate. I have published how incredibly accurate the WT2 is.
WT2 capacitor testing examples
Click on the link below to view a post with a couple of screen shots of the WT2's ARBscan output of a capacitor test.
Techtalk Speaker Building, Audio, Video, and Electronics Customer Discussion Forum From Parts-Express.com - View Single Post - Burning in hi-pass capacitors
It's quite remarkable the amount of data generated from a single scan (assuming the scan range is set to the max 10-20kHz).
1) Capacative reactance
2) Phase
3) ESR
4) true capacitance
All done over 31 discrete data points.
Click on the link below to view a post with a couple of screen shots of the WT2's ARBscan output of a capacitor test.
Techtalk Speaker Building, Audio, Video, and Electronics Customer Discussion Forum From Parts-Express.com - View Single Post - Burning in hi-pass capacitors
It's quite remarkable the amount of data generated from a single scan (assuming the scan range is set to the max 10-20kHz).
1) Capacative reactance
2) Phase
3) ESR
4) true capacitance
All done over 31 discrete data points.
Hello diyAudio,
I take issue with some of the facts as portrayed in Brian's post.
///// ISSUE #1: Is the WT3 hardware a ripped off copy of the WT2 hardware?
Brian states above "In my opinion the WT3 is about a 98% hardware copy of the WT2."
Brian also says: "We fixed this "leak" as soon as we found out the WT3 uses the WT2 hardware."
The Truth: If the two hardware designs are 98% common as he says then that can only mean the WT2 employs the same Texas Instruments USB Audio CODEC chip that I used in the WT3. This USB Audio chip is widely used in PC audio interfaces (Behringer UCA202, etc.) because it is about the only single chip USB Audio CODEC around and is the easiest way to implement a compact sound card. Everybody uses it. My design is taken directly from one of the published TI reference designs for the PCM2900 chip family. Here is a link to info on the TI PCM2900 USB Audio CODEC chip family for your reference.
To a design engineer the WT3 hardware is a rather trivial implementation of a generic sound card with a series resistor from output to input just as suggested by relder above when he says:
Because of the common use of USB Audio CODECs it is possible to run my WT3 software on many different sound cards...you just won't get calibrated results. The hardware is just a sound card with a resistor. All the "heavy lifting", so to speak is done in software which is where the WT3 Woofer Tester leapfrogs the performance of the previous generation Woofer Tester 2.
///// ISSUE #2: Does the WT3 really have an error of 66%?
Brian states above "We publish a paper on accuracy on our site woofertester.com. The error in finding Fs and Qt for the WT2 is less than 1%. I ran the same test on a WT3 and the average error was 66% for 10 trials. Your results may vary."
Brian's claim of 66% error is just ridiculous. I'll trust the reader's instincts to realize that such an outrageous claim is unlikely be true...unless the WT3 was operated with a handicap (i.e. volume not up all the way so the test signal is burried in the noise).
The Truth: When properly configured, the WT3 Woofer Tester delivers exquisite accuracy and repeatability as shown in the data set below. Here are the actual results of ten measurements I just performed on a 100 Ohm 0.1% reference resistor using the WT3:
99.962 Ohms
99.959
99.962
99.963
99.963
99.961
99.965
99.963
99.964
99.963
The total time for these ten measurements was under one minute. This data set reflects an accuracy of 0.037% with a standard deviation of 0.0017%. The WT3 was calibrated at 1000 Ohms with a 0.1% resistor. Note that this performance far exceeds the accuracy and precision required for speaker design.
As shipped, with the 1% calibration resistor, the accuracy specification for the WT3 must be relaxed to 1% (a test instrument is only as accurate as its calibration). The data set above shows the typical repeatability of WT3 measurements regardless of the calibration resistor (1% or 0.1%).
You can learn more about the WT3 Woofer Tester and upgrade the latest software here.
I take issue with some of the facts as portrayed in Brian's post.
///// ISSUE #1: Is the WT3 hardware a ripped off copy of the WT2 hardware?
Brian states above "In my opinion the WT3 is about a 98% hardware copy of the WT2."
Brian also says: "We fixed this "leak" as soon as we found out the WT3 uses the WT2 hardware."
The Truth: If the two hardware designs are 98% common as he says then that can only mean the WT2 employs the same Texas Instruments USB Audio CODEC chip that I used in the WT3. This USB Audio chip is widely used in PC audio interfaces (Behringer UCA202, etc.) because it is about the only single chip USB Audio CODEC around and is the easiest way to implement a compact sound card. Everybody uses it. My design is taken directly from one of the published TI reference designs for the PCM2900 chip family. Here is a link to info on the TI PCM2900 USB Audio CODEC chip family for your reference.
To a design engineer the WT3 hardware is a rather trivial implementation of a generic sound card with a series resistor from output to input just as suggested by relder above when he says:
Because of the common use of USB Audio CODECs it is possible to run my WT3 software on many different sound cards...you just won't get calibrated results. The hardware is just a sound card with a resistor. All the "heavy lifting", so to speak is done in software which is where the WT3 Woofer Tester leapfrogs the performance of the previous generation Woofer Tester 2.
///// ISSUE #2: Does the WT3 really have an error of 66%?
Brian states above "We publish a paper on accuracy on our site woofertester.com. The error in finding Fs and Qt for the WT2 is less than 1%. I ran the same test on a WT3 and the average error was 66% for 10 trials. Your results may vary."
Brian's claim of 66% error is just ridiculous. I'll trust the reader's instincts to realize that such an outrageous claim is unlikely be true...unless the WT3 was operated with a handicap (i.e. volume not up all the way so the test signal is burried in the noise).
The Truth: When properly configured, the WT3 Woofer Tester delivers exquisite accuracy and repeatability as shown in the data set below. Here are the actual results of ten measurements I just performed on a 100 Ohm 0.1% reference resistor using the WT3:
99.962 Ohms
99.959
99.962
99.963
99.963
99.961
99.965
99.963
99.964
99.963
The total time for these ten measurements was under one minute. This data set reflects an accuracy of 0.037% with a standard deviation of 0.0017%. The WT3 was calibrated at 1000 Ohms with a 0.1% resistor. Note that this performance far exceeds the accuracy and precision required for speaker design.
As shipped, with the 1% calibration resistor, the accuracy specification for the WT3 must be relaxed to 1% (a test instrument is only as accurate as its calibration). The data set above shows the typical repeatability of WT3 measurements regardless of the calibration resistor (1% or 0.1%).
You can learn more about the WT3 Woofer Tester and upgrade the latest software here.
Thread closed. This is a commercial matter, not DIY Thank you.- Status
- Not open for further replies.