Seeing what Polk has (not) provided in specifics/measurements for various speakers/subs over the years in their own literature, the response isn't surprising. But thanks for asking and posting the response....
I recently emailed customer service for the manufacturer of my speakers (polk) requesting the frequency response data. I explained I wanted to use it so I could apply equalization to get my preferred response. I provided the speaker serial numbers as well.
Their polite response was:
"Unfortunately, the frequency response graph data, the spinorama data, and the anechoic chamber data is not something that we can give out to consumers. We apologize for the inconvenience."
my question is why? Is it intellectual property or trade secret that could be used by competitors? Anyone have any insight as to why this is not freely available to customers?
The question is why not provide the data upon request?
RTi100.What speaker model?
You can't do Speaker correction based on in room measurments, otherwise there would be no need for anechoic measurments to begin with.
Oh, the comments above. But as a loudspeaker engineer, I'll also say "because it is irrelevant to consumers." Why is that? Well, because every designer and factory has their own somewhat different physical and electronic and software setup for measuring. You really cannot compare the results too minutely. Therefore that information is mostly for internal use-when I wanted to compare to competitors I bought them and measured them on my own idiosyncratic setup. Other specs like frequency response ± specs, power handling, sensitivity are also pretty irrelevant for similar reasons plus often averaged, exaggerated, lied about by the marketing department.my question is why?
Oh, the comments above. But as a loudspeaker engineer, I'll also say "because it is irrelevant to consumers." Why is that? Well, because every designer and factory has their own somewhat different physical and electronic and software setup for measuring. You really cannot compare the results too minutely. Therefore that information is mostly for internal use-when I wanted to compare to competitors I bought them and measured them on my own idiosyncratic setup. Other specs like frequency response ± specs, power handling, sensitivity are also pretty irrelevant for similar reasons plus often averaged, exaggerated, lied about by the marketing department.
As for EQ, let me build on what was alluded in a previous post. I attended an Audio Engineering Society talk given my Jamie something-or-other who had been sound guy for The Grateful Dead. They proudly were the first to take 1/3 octave EQs out on the road, EQd every little peak and dip flat. It sounded like [vomit emoji]. Turned out this is because the response is actually in two parts: the first direct sound, then all the reflections. A regular EQ cannot fix problems except grossly because it messes with both the direct and the reflected. Then you need a time-based EQ like Dirac or Audyssey. (Note that at the lowest frequencies, the direct and reflected sound blur together and old-school EQ can sometimes help problems).
That certain number is likely 99%.Perhaps irrelevant to a certain number of consumers, but why not make the data available in a somewhat standardized format?
Thanks for the insight. Yes I can see how the information can be non-standard and not representative of the in room characteristics and therefore not something you can use outside the testing environment.Oh, the comments above. But as a loudspeaker engineer, I'll also say "because it is irrelevant to consumers." Why is that? Well, because every designer and factory has their own somewhat different physical and electronic and software setup for measuring. You really cannot compare the results too minutely. Therefore that information is mostly for internal use-when I wanted to compare to competitors I bought them and measured them on my own idiosyncratic setup. Other specs like frequency response ± specs, power handling, sensitivity are also pretty irrelevant for similar reasons plus often averaged, exaggerated, lied about by the marketing department.
As for EQ, let me build on what was alluded in a previous post. I attended an Audio Engineering Society talk given my Jamie something-or-other who had been sound guy for The Grateful Dead. They proudly were the first to take 1/3 octave EQs out on the road, EQd every little peak and dip flat. It sounded like [vomit emoji]. Turned out this is because the response is actually in two parts: the first direct sound, then all the reflections. A regular EQ cannot fix problems except grossly because it messes with both the direct and the reflected. Then you need a time-based EQ like Dirac or Audyssey. (Note that at the lowest frequencies, the direct and reflected sound blur together and old-school EQ can sometimes help problems).
4. It's way easier to sell a speaker with a nice story behind it, full of praise and adjectives, rather than with it's performance data.
First is less expensive and easier to do, second is more expensive and harder to achieve.
Because then you go on the internet and say you got individual graphs upon request. Suddenly Polk have countless ‘individual requests’.Hey all. Let's set my motivations aside for a minute. The question is why not provide the data upon request?
My speaker has a published frequency response spec. So someone took a measurement to determine the published spec.
36hz-27khz +/-3db
90db 1w1m
8ohm
In the 80's there was a French speaker company named 3A that was providing an individual respons curve for each speaker.
Nowadays they do not exist anymore.
In fact they were providing a copy of the measurement of the first manufactured speaker (the prototype) in place of measuring each speaker as advertised.
I am not sure there is any use at getting the measurement of the gold sample unit: it is a guidance but the unit that we buy today may diverge after several years of production. Manufacturers are making all the time changes to the production units (i.e.: Denon with low performing capacitors as Amir prove it during his tests).
Only measurement Of a current unit can tell what we get.
I recently emailed customer service for the manufacturer of my speakers (polk) requesting the frequency response data. I explained I wanted to use it so I could apply equalization to get my preferred response. I provided the speaker serial numbers as well.
Their polite response was:
"Unfortunately, the frequency response graph data, the spinorama data, and the anechoic chamber data is not something that we can give out to consumers. We apologize for the inconvenience."
my question is why? Is it intellectual property or trade secret that could be used by competitors? Anyone have any insight as to why this is not freely available to customers?
Personally, I think individual QC test reports for top of the range products are not unreasonable and should be provided. Plenty of gear in the vintage era came with signed off individual test cards in the box.
But for normal run of the mill products, specifications are sufficient.
Personally, I think individual QC test reports for top of the range products are not unreasonable and should be provided. Plenty of gear in the vintage era came with signed off individual test cards in the box.
But for normal run of the mill products, specifications are sufficient.