Stuey, you have a very valid question. In fact, those of us in the working group refused to start on the project until the manufacturers confirmed they wanted it. Furthermore, we asked for some of the biggest retailers to sit in on the working group.
In general, manufacturers want a fair playing field. The dealers do too because the better products cost more and produce more profit. Finally, the installers really want to know what the real specs are so they can match components. The Mobile Electronics Certification Professional (MECP) program actually teaches about the CTA ratings and reputable installers will look for products that have the CTA rating. As cars have gotten more complex, it has become ever more difficult for hobbyists to upgrade a factory stereo. In other words, the market for the overhyped products will hopefully decrease. However, I have no pretense that our efforts will eliminate the problem.
In general, manufacturers want a fair playing field. The dealers do too because the better products cost more and produce more profit. Finally, the installers really want to know what the real specs are so they can match components. The Mobile Electronics Certification Professional (MECP) program actually teaches about the CTA ratings and reputable installers will look for products that have the CTA rating. As cars have gotten more complex, it has become ever more difficult for hobbyists to upgrade a factory stereo. In other words, the market for the overhyped products will hopefully decrease. However, I have no pretense that our efforts will eliminate the problem.
A little late to the party, but I'll throw in my $0.02 CDN anyhow.
In terms of power measurement, the specification is good. The addition of a quantifier that the output measurement include a time of at least 250mSec will help to rule out amplifiers where the power supply is inadequate to maintain the current demands of the output stage of the amp.
Where the current rating truly falls short is in the S/N Ratio specification - a quantifier that is more important in comparing the suitability of a product for an application than power. Currently, the gain ratio of the test is not included and most manufacturers will simply turn the sensitivity control all the way down when doing the test.
One suggestion would be to set a fixed ratio. 250mV input for 2Vrms (1 watt into a 4-ohm load) as the output. This better quantifies the quality of the gain stage of the amp and its noise performance.
Testing would be required to choose a gain ratio that suits most amplifiers on the market and a note would be required if the amp was tested at a different gain ratio.
As for Stuey's comments. I think some level of policing should be required. If someone of adequate skill and experience can verify that published measurements are not in compliance with the published standards, there should be a way to contact the CTA to report this.
In terms of power measurement, the specification is good. The addition of a quantifier that the output measurement include a time of at least 250mSec will help to rule out amplifiers where the power supply is inadequate to maintain the current demands of the output stage of the amp.
Where the current rating truly falls short is in the S/N Ratio specification - a quantifier that is more important in comparing the suitability of a product for an application than power. Currently, the gain ratio of the test is not included and most manufacturers will simply turn the sensitivity control all the way down when doing the test.
One suggestion would be to set a fixed ratio. 250mV input for 2Vrms (1 watt into a 4-ohm load) as the output. This better quantifies the quality of the gain stage of the amp and its noise performance.
Testing would be required to choose a gain ratio that suits most amplifiers on the market and a note would be required if the amp was tested at a different gain ratio.
As for Stuey's comments. I think some level of policing should be required. If someone of adequate skill and experience can verify that published measurements are not in compliance with the published standards, there should be a way to contact the CTA to report this.
Real Standards for Automotive Amplifiers
Gentlemen,
I have been searching for the breadcrumbs and following the bread crumb trail ... And knowing the business of outsourcing/ offshoring of many of the components that make up our industry, the preposterous claims and cheating that has dominated the consumers array of products. Not knowing whether you are buying a box of junk that may very likely burn your car down to the frame or just let go and leave magic smoke residue inside the vehicle that will not go away for months.
Why can we not have a new standard, real specifications from the QC bench as it is readied for boxing that makes companies that engineer and profit handsomely, but do not follow any rules and cheat, leaving the consumer to make a decision from other peoples experience, instead of a real testing methodology, say very much like they do with 120 Volt/ 220 Volt amplifiers, signal processors, equalizers, ect.
Go back to when you opened the magazine or the owner sheet and the specifications were the truth, not fudged and cheated pie in the sky borderline or outright lies. Like the Owners manual I recently read that claimed 1500 Watts output power, but only uses a single 50 amp fuse. Its is electronically impossible and a real LIE.
This industry makes billions of dollars duping unsuspecting consumers, that would not know what a signal to noise ratio or RMS power standard from the price of a loaf of bread.
I used to be an owner and designer of high performance audio systems- took home trophies from contests. Now I scour the local 2nd hand shops and Ebay for older, Rockford Fosgate, Soundstream, Zapco, and real Hifonics when they were the real powerhouses, overbuilt and destroyed weak subwoofers without even getting a few degrees above ambient temperature.
Now you can not tell a box of electronic lies with a shiney cover and fancy box from a real engineered and tested quality piece of long lasting gear that can be trusted to at least do what is hawked on the box.
I propose a new standard, as it should be, based on rigorous testing and telling the truth about the product: S/N, Total Harmonic Distortion @ rated output 20Hz-20KHz <not at 14.4V, 12.5V to 13/13.5 DC Volts, real world conditions.
I tried to get the people that actually make the garbage I am talking about in China, Taiwan and other places to build a line of real world of truthful tested products and they did not even respond with any coherent bids to build the mono block, stereo, and 4/5 channel Amplifiers.
To end my input this already known big farce, I am proposing to revamp the CEA-2006 (CTA) whatever you decide to call it, (name is not the issue) to a new real standard. Leveling the playing field, make the industry a place that is not filled with bogus claims. Go back to X watts per channel @.05 % distortion, or whatever you come up with, and wipe the slate clean, no more "3000 watts per channel at 40 Hz/ 10% distortion with 50 amps of fuse protection", the tests on a very expensive testing devices reveal one fourth to one third as the real number. And the Consumer, has no clue to what they are really spending their hard earned money on. It is a shame and a SHAM.
Kevin L. Campbell, MCSE, MCP, MCT, A+
Office----------817.444.4552
Cell------------817.723.9386
Gentlemen,
I have been searching for the breadcrumbs and following the bread crumb trail ... And knowing the business of outsourcing/ offshoring of many of the components that make up our industry, the preposterous claims and cheating that has dominated the consumers array of products. Not knowing whether you are buying a box of junk that may very likely burn your car down to the frame or just let go and leave magic smoke residue inside the vehicle that will not go away for months.
Why can we not have a new standard, real specifications from the QC bench as it is readied for boxing that makes companies that engineer and profit handsomely, but do not follow any rules and cheat, leaving the consumer to make a decision from other peoples experience, instead of a real testing methodology, say very much like they do with 120 Volt/ 220 Volt amplifiers, signal processors, equalizers, ect.
Go back to when you opened the magazine or the owner sheet and the specifications were the truth, not fudged and cheated pie in the sky borderline or outright lies. Like the Owners manual I recently read that claimed 1500 Watts output power, but only uses a single 50 amp fuse. Its is electronically impossible and a real LIE.
This industry makes billions of dollars duping unsuspecting consumers, that would not know what a signal to noise ratio or RMS power standard from the price of a loaf of bread.
I used to be an owner and designer of high performance audio systems- took home trophies from contests. Now I scour the local 2nd hand shops and Ebay for older, Rockford Fosgate, Soundstream, Zapco, and real Hifonics when they were the real powerhouses, overbuilt and destroyed weak subwoofers without even getting a few degrees above ambient temperature.
Now you can not tell a box of electronic lies with a shiney cover and fancy box from a real engineered and tested quality piece of long lasting gear that can be trusted to at least do what is hawked on the box.
I propose a new standard, as it should be, based on rigorous testing and telling the truth about the product: S/N, Total Harmonic Distortion @ rated output 20Hz-20KHz <not at 14.4V, 12.5V to 13/13.5 DC Volts, real world conditions.
I tried to get the people that actually make the garbage I am talking about in China, Taiwan and other places to build a line of real world of truthful tested products and they did not even respond with any coherent bids to build the mono block, stereo, and 4/5 channel Amplifiers.
To end my input this already known big farce, I am proposing to revamp the CEA-2006 (CTA) whatever you decide to call it, (name is not the issue) to a new real standard. Leveling the playing field, make the industry a place that is not filled with bogus claims. Go back to X watts per channel @.05 % distortion, or whatever you come up with, and wipe the slate clean, no more "3000 watts per channel at 40 Hz/ 10% distortion with 50 amps of fuse protection", the tests on a very expensive testing devices reveal one fourth to one third as the real number. And the Consumer, has no clue to what they are really spending their hard earned money on. It is a shame and a SHAM.
Kevin L. Campbell, MCSE, MCP, MCT, A+
Office----------817.444.4552
Cell------------817.723.9386
It's OK to have tougher standards but...
Most consumers:
can't tell the difference between average and the best
will never hear an A/B comparison between an average amp and the best amps
don't have the speakers or installation quality that would show the difference between average and best
won't learn what the various standards mean
Why not have a lab test high end amps and publish the specs. For power, test into various loads at various voltages. Give distortion specs at rated power and then again at 1% if the amp does more than rated power. No pass fail tests, no standards. Just publish what the amps measured. There will be no cheating/lying if the lab wants to remain credible.
Most consumers:
can't tell the difference between average and the best
will never hear an A/B comparison between an average amp and the best amps
don't have the speakers or installation quality that would show the difference between average and best
won't learn what the various standards mean
Why not have a lab test high end amps and publish the specs. For power, test into various loads at various voltages. Give distortion specs at rated power and then again at 1% if the amp does more than rated power. No pass fail tests, no standards. Just publish what the amps measured. There will be no cheating/lying if the lab wants to remain credible.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.