Dayton Audio Sig series

Jump to Latest
#61
hurrication said:
what it does is open up the gates for people who think they're gurus to misunderstand or misinterpret the data and push false narratives that eventually get parroted all over the internet by people who don't even know any better.
Click to expand...
hurrication said:
I don't need some clown trashing my products all over social media and creating a bad narrative over klippel data that he doesn't even understand
Click to expand...

Hmm, what website does that remind me of?
sinadchifi.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kwesi, weissi, Bryguy and 2 others
#66
I don't see a problem with releasing in depth data on an audio product. The fact that there will be many who do not understand is a poor excuse. The market is argue is a bit different now. I've made some of my young friends (20's) care about the data and they can interpret it enough to know whether a product is junk. Many manufacturers release the info and sell stuff fine. Many won't even consider buying without data. Many YouTubers are doing data like joe n tell.

Makes me think of black lion audio mods. They think their customers are too dumb to understand some numbers and seem to be unable to offer summaries on what the numbers mean (seems like it'd be easy to understand to me) so they show their differences of the mods with made up bars.

With that said, I'm looking to grab the 8 inch and pair it with a tebm46 and Dayton td20f. Should give me a nice wide dispersion speaker for little money, but I can't say I've used or heard this tweeter. Most ribbons seem out of budget and very narrow in verticals.
 
  • Like
Reactions: morbo, b_force and Bryguy
#67
 
Last edited:
#68
hurrication said:
Klippel is an incredible tool to use for speaker development. There is a reason it is the industry standard. The problem with companies releasing all of their klippel data is that for 97% of buyers, it is useless data. The vast majority of people buying speakers are not going to understand any of the data at all. And on top of that, what it does is open up the gates for people who think they're gurus to misunderstand or misinterpret the data and push false narratives that eventually get parroted all over the internet by people who don't even know any better. I remember this happening back in the day with dumax and klippel data from Brahma xbl subwoofers, they would sometimes show a small dip in BL at the rest position and people on forums were losing their mind about it, even though it was literally inconsequential. Then competitor companies would come in and use that as ammo to market their own subwoofers.

I feel like I'm one of the few people on this forum who is actually developing their own speakers, and I would never in my life publically post all of the klippel data on my products. Maybe your basic BL(x), Kms, or Le(x), but that's it. It's too risky, and I don't need some clown trashing my products all over social media and creating a bad narrative over klippel data that he doesn't even understand.
Click to expand...
So you vote for false advertising?

I understand what you're saying, but if the majority doesn't understand the data, leave it out.
It's either leaving things out or backing things up. But you can't advertise words that can't be checked by the customer. In fact that's even iligal in quite some countries.

At this moment data is close to useless even for professionals.

But yeah, as a professional myself I totally get you. I think the pro audio (sound reinforcement) is worse with their more is more better SPL numbers.
137dB out of a single 15 inch woofer for example. (theoretical half space peak + 12dB crest factor). Unfortunately everyone is doing it and needs to do it because how the majority of people (incl "gurus") think.
 
  • Like
Reactions: weissi, morbo and jaakkopetteri
#70
wafflesomd said:
The fact that there will be many who do not understand is a poor excuse.
Click to expand...
Perhaps. Knowing is just the first step. The vocal majority tend to make the most of what's in front of them and audiophile myths can have a long life. There have been some triumphs in recent times, but the ebb and flow of the collected knowledge hasn't necessarily improved with the quantity available.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scottmoose
#72
hurrication said:
I don't understand how a manufacturer saying a driver is "klippel verified" would be false advertising? The manufacturers verified the specs of their driver on a klippel..
Click to expand...
Agreed. I'm no legal eagle, but to me, that would simply be a statement of fact, no more or less; I certainly don't see how it confers an obligation to pass all of your engineering data to anybody who demands it, as that runs slap-bang into the field of ownership, and intellectual and commercial property rights.
 
#73
hurrication said:
I don't understand how a manufacturer saying a driver is "klippel verified" would be false advertising? The manufacturers verified the specs of their driver on a klippel..
Click to expand...
If a manufacturer is saying that, he also has the legal obligation to show this information when a customer asks for it.
Although a general rule of thumb is that it had to be clear for the buying customers right away.

It is only a fact (@Scottmoose ) when a company can back this up, otherwise there is no way for the customer to verify that a company is just flat out lying. For example saying it was "Klippel verified" but not being true, or fussing with the numbers etc etc. And yes even some huge companies fuss with this (people probable remember some VW scandal).

TL: DR
How can you know that the company actually really verified this with Klippel and didn't intentionally or unintentionally fussed with the numbers to make them look better?

Which brings us back to datasheets, where the vast majority of the T/S parameters (like Re or Qt) are being claimed but it's totally unclear how those claims were being obtained and under what conditions.
Saying that a certain cone excursion by some Klippel percentage is most definitely a claim that has to be backed up for and falls 100% under consumer protection laws. If a company refuses to give you that information, they have a legal problem.

I'm no legal eagle, but as a professional I worked with enough products that I know this is at least true for Europe and I also think for the US (not completely sure on the details and nuances).

btw, I don't see how performance has anything to do with intellectual property?
Those are two totally different things.
But more importantly, consumer rights laws don't really care about those.
 
Last edited:
#74
AllenB said:
Perhaps. Knowing is just the first step. The vocal majority tend to make the most of what's in front of them and audiophile myths can have a long life. There have been some triumphs in recent times, but the ebb and flow of the collected knowledge hasn't necessarily improved with the quantity available.
Click to expand...
Not only that, but having information, even when it's being misunderstood, is better than staying if freaking obscurity and myths.

Guess some companies just rather like to hide stuff for obvious reasons.
 
#75
So I have been looking around for some documentation that is readable, understandable as well in English.
(this combination makes it a little tricky)

Therefor I bumped into the Australian Competition & Consumer Commision, but the general story within like EU is basically the same;
https://www.accc.gov.au/business/advertising-and-promotions/false-or-misleading-claims

In this case we are talking about "Premium or benefit claims" (see half way page).
"A business must be able to prove a claim of a product having a particular quality or benefit."

Important to also know is that a business or company has the burden of proof.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)

A certain cone excursion and performance (percentage of Klippel), most definitely belongs to this category!!!

On this same page the advise to companies;
"back up claims with facts and evidence"

and

"be prepared to prove claims."

Hopefully this helps understanding what basic consumer rights are.
Details and nuances may differ from country to country obviously.

Under the FTC;
https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidan...rove-costly-under-new-notice-penalty-offenses

"Making an objective product claim without relying on competent and reliable evidence to support it;"
 
Last edited:
#76
b_force said:
btw, I don't see how performance has anything to do with intellectual property?
Click to expand...
AFAIK it would depend on how (to use this case) it's used, and 'performance' is defined. If a manufacturer happens to use Klippel, or any other item of equipment in their design and development process, to the best of my knowledge that doesn't confer a free-for-all where they are obliged to turn over all of their work on-demand. That would be a bit like saying 'a BMW engineer stated they used xyz FEM software in their engineering facility: I thereofre have the right to all of their design, engineering and development data.'

It usually comes down to specifics -at least in my admittedly limited experience. If a company makes a highly specific performance claim, they have to be able to prove that, which is fair enough. If they simply say 'we used xyz in the development, or to verify our design process [or some similar generalised phrase]' without making any particular performance references or claims, then all they would have to do if asked is confirm that they did indeed employ whatever they were referring to -they aren't under any obligation to start handing out their engineering data or other details to all & sundry.
 
Last edited:
#77
Scottmoose said:
It would depend on how (to use this case) it's used, and 'performance' is definied. If a manufacturer happens to use Klippel, or any other item of equipment in their design and development process, to the best of my knowledge that doesn't confer a free-for-all where they are obliged to turn over all of their work on-demand. That would be a bit like saying 'a BMW engineer stated they used xyz FEM software in their engineering facility: I thereofre have the right to all of their design, engineering and development data.'

To the best of my knowledge, it comes down to specifics. If a company makes a highly specific performance claim, they have to be able to prove that, which is fair enough. If they simply say 'we used xyz in the development, or to verify our design process [or some similar generalised phrase]' without making any particular performance references or claims, then all they would have to do if asked is confirm that they did indeed employ whatever they were referring to -they aren't under any obligation to start handing out their engineering data or other details to all & sundry.
Click to expand...
If a company makes that claim, you have to back it up, as simple as that (see post above).

So if you don't want to give away your IP (if that is part of your claim), don't use that IP in your claim.

Btw, Klippel is no IP, it's just a measuring tool with a certain measuring method.
Nothing fancy to see here, most certainly not any IP.

Btw 2, we are not talking about if something is "fair enough". Companies have simply legal obligations (again see post above)
 
#78
Klippel is not 'IP' and I don't think anybody said otherwise. What is, are design details and data obtained using it during a design and development and / or testing process.

Looking at the PE page, the two Klippel references appear to be:
Extensive Klippel LMP and LSI testing to optimize Bl symmetry and parameters
Click to expand...
&
The Signature Series speaker drivers used rigorous Klippel testing throughout the design process, a state-of-the-art analysis method to provide optimal performance, consistency, and reliability by precisely measuring and optimizing the drivers' magnetic and mechanical properties.
Click to expand...
Looking at that -I don't actually see any specific performance claims being made. They state Klippel is used, and what it is / can be used for, for those who are unaware, as it's being stated for its marketing value, but critically, they provide no definition for 'optimizing' Bl [sic] symmetry or anything else. The only hard claim made is that they used Klippel in the design process, ergo the only thing they have to prove is that. They don't have to provide people with their data.
 
#79
@Scottmoose

The datasheet says "*Xmax @ 82% BL", they have to prove and show data that this is actually true.

With those other claims they either have to prove they actually used Klippel to verify the data.
Otherwise it can be seen as "vague claims" which are a violation on itself (again see previous post)

Anyway, I am not going to repeat this again.
The previous post with the websites of commissions and rules are extremely clear, so I would advice reading and understanding this a bit better.

Kinda weird and interesting that a consumer is not coming up for his own rights btw.
 
#80
Well, that's straightforward: you can ask them to provide that specific piece of information, and they provide it or be under the potential threat of court action if anybody is sufficiently bothered and financially secure enough to take it to that stage. AFAIK, they aren't obliged to provide anything outside the confines of specific claims -certainly not in the UK anyway. It might be different elsewhere, although I rather doubt blanket applications will get too far in many situations. You are free to call that 'weird and interesting' as you see fit, obviously. To use this example though, I can't honestly say I'm bothered if they've decided to set Xmax at a nominal 82% of B*L, since Xmax is a fairly worthless metric in the first place, even if there was any standardised industry definition for it (which there isn't), and presumably some latitude for production QA tolerance, different measurement conditions etc. is necessarily to be allowed for the sake of common sense anyway.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom