Which speaker companies are honest when rating their impedance, and which companies lie?

[Pyrrho]

The title question says it all:

Which speaker companies are honest when rating their impedance, and which companies lie?​

For example, I have gotten the impression that Apogee, Aurum Cantus, and McIntosh are honest in their impedance ratings. (Or were, in the case of Apogee, which is no more.)

I have gotten the impression that Infinity and Wharfedale are dishonest about the impedance of their speakers. Here is some evidence for both of these brands:

Infinity Primus P363 Floorstanding Loudspeaker Measurements and Analysis | Audioholics

Wharfedale Diamond 10.1 loudspeaker Measurements | Stereophile.com

Compare with claim:

Wharfedale Diamond 10.1 loudspeaker Specifications | Stereophile.com

Obviously, one cannot show with a couple of links like these that a company is always honest, but if they are dishonest, it is an easy matter to prove by coming up with one example.

In the case of Apogee, Aurum Cantus, and McIntosh, I have never seen any speaker of theirs rated improperly, and so I am inclined to think they might be honest. That is obviously not a full proof of honesty, but if anyone knows of any examples of dishonesty from any of them, they can post a reply with a link to the evidence.

So, what speaker brands do you believe rate their speakers honestly, and which ones do not? Please provide links for the evidence that the dishonest ones are dishonest.

 

[TLS Guy]

The title question says it all:

Which speaker companies are honest when rating their impedance, and which companies lie?​

For example, I have gotten the impression that Apogee, Aurum Cantus, and McIntosh are honest in their impedance ratings. (Or were, in the case of Apogee, which is no more.)

I have gotten the impression that Infinity and Wharfedale are dishonest about the impedance of their speakers. Here is some evidence for both of these brands:

Infinity Primus P363 Floorstanding Loudspeaker Measurements and Analysis | Audioholics

Wharfedale Diamond 10.1 loudspeaker Measurements | Stereophile.com

Compare with claim:

Wharfedale Diamond 10.1 loudspeaker Specifications | Stereophile.com

Obviously, one cannot show with a couple of links like these that a company is always honest, but if they are dishonest, it is an easy matter to prove by coming up with one example.

In the case of Apogee, Aurum Cantus, and McIntosh, I have never seen any speaker of theirs rated improperly, and so I am inclined to think they might be honest. That is obviously not a full proof of honesty, but if anyone knows of any examples of dishonesty from any of them, they can post a reply with a link to the evidence.

So, what speaker brands do you believe rate their speakers honestly, and which ones do not? Please provide links for the evidence that the dishonest ones are dishonest.

I don't think dishonest is the word. I think it is don't discourage sales. There is no definition of impedance rating. In other words a manufacturer is free to quote an impedance from any part of the curve he wants to.

Frankly any speaker that does not drop it impedance below 500 Hz to the tuning peak or peaks, you likely don't want.

The only devices that I know of that are inclined to go into reset, over heat and or blow up when confronted with four ohm loads or difficult phase angles are receivers. Most have lousy power amp sections that are not worth the time of day.

I don't blame the speaker manufacturers for this. The receiver manufacturers are squarely in my sites for producing units not fit for purpose.

I have been in the field a long time and I never remember this being an issue, until some lunatics got the ideal of cramming a radio, HDMI boards, Internet streaming, preamp, Dacs, bass management, and five or seven power amps is a box and charging $300 or less for it.

That's the problem, not the speaker manufacturers. I don't know of a speaker, where the speaker manufacturer should expect a device connected to it should blow up. Complain to the guys that make the junk that blows up. They are the villains.

 

[PENG]

I don't think dishonest is the word. I think it is don't discourage sales. There is no definition of impedance rating. In other words a manufacturer is free to quote an impedance from any part of the curve he wants to.

I thought the Europeans do follow some sort of standards but you could be right in general, until we see a standard definition for "nominal" as we all know impedance varies over the frequency range.

The only devices that I know of that are inclined to go into reset, over heat and or blow up when confronted with four ohm loads or difficult phase angles are receivers. Most have lousy power amp sections that are not worth the time of day.

I think the majority of the users do not have issues, and most power users will know to buy power amps instead of receivers anyway. It is like if you want to drive fast you don't buy a mini van but if you want it do most things for your family and drive at 10 km above speed limit then mini is a viable option.

I don't blame the speaker manufacturers for this. The receiver manufacturers are squarely in my sites for producing units not fit for purpose.

I respect your opinion but I think most other people would agree that most of the time it is the user to blame. If they don't know what they need for their applications it is not difficult for them to find out, before spending money on something that may not work for them.

That's the problem, not the speaker manufacturers. I don't know of a speaker, where the speaker manufacturer should expect a device connected to it should blow up. Complain to the guys that make the junk that blows up. They are the villains.

You exaggerated the issue to the nth degree, trying to make a point, then fair enough. The fact is, there aren't that many receivers blowing up. I have used many, never blow one up, never have one tripped and never heard of anything like that from people I know. Yes, I do see that being reported regularly on forums but the odds still seem relatively low. They may clip more often than people know, but those owners probably won't even notice and are probably not as picky as you and I are to begin with. You get what you pay for and you end up with more happy users. If there were no AVRs, separates will cost less due to the economy of scale, but it would still be beyond a lot of people's reach and that is not a good thing. People who made the <$1,500 AVRs such as the 3312, RX-A1020, X4000 are no villains in my book, I may even buy one of those.

 

[Alex2507]

I have used many, never blow one up, never have one tripped and never heard of anything like that from people I know. Yes, I do see that being reported regularly on forums but the odds still seem relatively low.

I guess this will be yet another forum report of obtaining temporary silence from a rec'r. The speakers were Infinity RS4 and the rec'r was an H/K AVR 635. The song was Money for Nothing of course. It was already crazy loud but I thought it would sound better louder so when the silence came it was a complete surprise. Even the birds and insects were holding their breath. I'm not allowed to touch the remote at that house anymore.

I think I remember the impedance dipping to 2.2 Ohms on those speakers but I'm not going to search for links. I'm not even sure what they're rated at but it sure ain't 2 Ohms.

 

[Ricardojoa]

I think it is important to consider the frequency where the lowest resistance is and its phase angle.

 

[fmw]

The receiver manufacturers build what most people need. I'm one of those people. They aren't a good choice for driving electrostatic speakers, that's for sure but I don't have any electrostatic speakers.

 

[TLS Guy]

PENG

I respect your opinion but I think most other people would agree that most of the time it is the user to blame. If they don't know what they need for their applications it is not difficult for them to find out, before spending money on something that may not work for them.

I have to agree with you about that. I guess if you buy a receiver at the lower end of the market, you should treat it very gently. But that requires the rare commodity of common sense.

However I still stand by my comment that this was not an issue before low priced AV receivers. It is the receiver, and I would agree user, we need to focus on and not the speaker manufacturers.

 

[Adam]

Speaker impedance thread morphs into receiver bashing/defense thread. Welcome to Audioholics.

I agree with Peng and fmw - I think that the concept of the receiver is a good thing. No...a great thing. Not all examples of that concept are good, but many are. As for Alex breaking something, now there's a shocker.

 

[Alex2507]

As for Alex breaking something, now there's a shocker.

Walter cranked it up so loud that his amp tripped the 120 Volt circuit breaker.
There's a weak link in every chain.

/derailment

 

[TLS Guy]

Speaker impedance thread morphs into receiver bashing/defense thread. Welcome to Audioholics.

I agree with Peng and fmw - I think that the concept of the receiver is a good thing. No...a great thing. Not all examples of that concept are good, but many are. As for Alex breaking something, now there's a shocker.

I think I just diverted it from being a speaker bashing thread. It is threads like this that discourage manufacturers from correctly implementing BSC compensation. That is not a good thing.

On the other hand it really surprises me that receiver makers really don't innervate.

For instance you could still sell the complete package and have the power supply and pre/pro in separate boxes. The pre/pro is all low voltage, so you could have your amp and power supply unobtrusive, and a cord with a connector to power the pre/pro and take the signals back to the power amp.

This was the rule back in the tube days. The power amp and power supply connected via octal sockets to the preamp. That was true at the lower end of the market also, and no one objected, and in fact they liked it. It made the control unit small, which actually made installations easier and tidier.

There is far too much corporate lock step.

Everyone just keeps doing the same thing and in my view that's not progressive.

 

[Adam]

For instance you could still sell the complete package and have the power supply and pre/pro in separate boxes. The pre/pro is all low voltage, so you could have your amp and power supply unobtrusive, and a cord with a connector to power the pre/pro and take the signals back to the power amp.

I think that I owned such a system from Radio Shack back when I was in junior high or high school. It had a number of different boxes (I forget how they were split, but something like tuner, equalizer, preamp, amp) that were connected with a ribbon cable. Granted, not an example of top-notch quality, but maybe not much different than the quality one would get these days if manufacturers added the costs of all those cases, extra packing, and so forth. Honestly, I like having it all in one box. It's easier to work with and more compact...and I'm even a single guy. I don't think either of my brothers could slip multiple boxes past their wives unless one of those boxes was small with diamond jewelry inside.

I don't know if you read my recent review on the Denon AVR-E400, but I was quite impressed by its power section. My speakers aren't a difficult load, and I don't listen at ear-bleeding levels, but I did push it all the way to reference volume on a 5.1 sound track to check that it maintained dynamics...which it did. The same is true for the Onkyo TX-NR626 that I recently checked. Both of those bested my 2005 Pioneer VSX-1015, which would sound muffled at really high volumes. Things is, they all sound the same at my normal listening levels, so most receivers are just fine for me powerwise.

I'm not claiming that receivers are a solution for everyone. I know they aren't. They are one for me, though, and I believe for a lot of people. Sure, some people are going to push them too far and damage them and/or their speakers. Then again, some people drive their cars into trees...but I'm still a fan of selling an engine along with wheels and a passenger cabin, all in one package.

 

[TLS Guy]

I think that I owned such a system from Radio Shack back when I was in junior high or high school. It had a number of different boxes (I forget how they were split, but something like tuner, equalizer, preamp, amp) that were connected with a ribbon cable. Granted, not an example of top-notch quality, but maybe not much different than the quality one would get these days if manufacturers added the costs of all those cases, extra packing, and so forth. Honestly, I like having it all in one box. It's easier to work with and more compact...and I'm even a single guy. I don't think either of my brothers could slip multiple boxes past their wives unless one of those boxes was small with diamond jewelry inside.

I don't know if you read my recent review on the Denon AVR-E400, but I was quite impressed by its power section. My speakers aren't a difficult load, and I don't listen at ear-bleeding levels, but I did push it all the way to reference volume on a 5.1 sound track to check that it maintained dynamics...which it did. The same is true for the Onkyo TX-NR626 that I recently checked. Both of those bested my 2005 Pioneer VSX-1015, which would sound muffled at really high volumes. Things is, they all sound the same at my normal listening levels, so most receivers are just fine for me powerwise.

I'm not claiming that receivers are a solution for everyone. I know they aren't. They are one for me, though, and I believe for a lot of people. Sure, some people are going to push them too far and damage them and/or their speakers. Then again, some people drive their cars into trees...but I'm still a fan of selling an engine along with wheels and a passenger cabin, all in one package.

I think WAF goes up when you have a small control unit and power amps out of site. There is way less tendency for a bird's nest of wires also.

 

[Adam]

I think WAF goes up when you have a small control unit and power amps out of site. There is way less tendency for a bird's nest of wires also.

Agreed. I think it goes up even more when everything is out of sight.

 

[Grador]

I think WAF goes up when you have a small control unit and power amps out of site. There is way less tendency for a bird's nest of wires also.

Most people have absolutely nowhere to hide things. Even if they did, you're now asking someone to give up usable storage space to hide more equipment.


Furthermore I don't think it's threads like this that are why people give optimistic reports of impedance. I trust that everyone who has responded to this thread has a solid understanding of how things work and would rather speakers were represented showing how difficult of a load they really are. The optimistic reports are entirely for people who have no clue what's going on and see a warning label on their receiver to never plug something in below X ohms.

 

[cpp]

Agreed. I think it goes up even more when everything is out of sight.

Oh yes the wife hates the wires, she said they are not in the HT room, I said well the house was built by a builder than built the walls and cabinets to house all of the equipment, speakers and wires.. What do you want me to do, build a wall for the 2 channel stuff, ya got the money ? I said enjoy the music or go shopping.. She went shopping and came back with 4 new outfits, shoes, belts, ear rings, dam, I could have built half a wall with that money.. Anyway, the WAF is key to surviving.

 

[psbfan9]

. There is no definition of impedance rating. In other words a manufacturer is free to quote an impedance from any part of the curve he wants to.
That's the problem, not the speaker manufacturers. I don't know of a speaker, where the speaker manufacturer should expect a device connected to it should blow up. Complain to the guys that make the junk that blows up. They are the villains.

If there is no 'standard' then, Harmon, or other manufacturers are not being dishonest with their ratings. I should say, according to their 'legal teams' they are not being dishonest...
But the speaker manufactures are the problem. If they are able to take which ever part of the curve they want and publish it as an honest rating, then how can the amp manufacturer or the end consumer be responsible for not properly powering the speaker if they don't know the actual impedance?

most of the time it is the user to blame. If they don't know what they need for their applications it is not difficult for them to find out, before spending money on something that may not work for them.

See above. If they do not know what they need to power the speakers because there is no standard measurement required, then the consumer should not be responsible for damaging the speakers if they base their amp decision on the impedance ratings. Look at the link Pyrrho pointed to where Gene says, "This is clearly a 4 ohm speaker"

everyone who has responded to this thread has a solid understanding of how things work

Yeah, I just blew that theory to hell......

 

[Pyrrho]

I don't think dishonest is the word. I think it is don't discourage sales. There is no definition of impedance rating. In other words a manufacturer is free to quote an impedance from any part of the curve he wants to.
...

There are standards, but, it would seem, not ones required by law. For example:

Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now, if you are right that there is no standard for nominal impedance, then specifying any nominal impedance is dishonest, since it is pretending to mean something when it does not.

Frankly, I would be happy if the above equation were required by law to be the way that nominal impedances were done, instead of, apparently, letting manufacturers make up anything they want.

As things are now, people have damaged amplifiers due to improper impedance matching because of the lies that some speaker companies tell about their speakers. If they told the truth, then when a robust amplifier is needed, the consumer would know. As it is now, unless a speaker is revięwed and measured, one will generally have no idea what the impedance characteristics are of the speakers one buys, and consequently one will have no idea of what is needed to drive them.

One of the examples I gave above about an honest company is one with very low impedance ratings for many of their speakers: Apogee. Some are as low as 1 ohm nominally. I am very happy that they told the truth, rather than selling low impedance speakers to people whose amplifiers are not up to the task. That is an example of a good company. Just imagine how many amplifiers people would destroy with such speakers if they lied and called them 8 ohms instead.

It would be completely wrong to blame amplifier manufacturers for the lies that many speaker companies tell. The amplifier manufacturers have no control over what the speaker companies say about their speakers, so it is ridiculous to blame them for that.

 

[Irvrobinson]

As things are now, people have damaged amplifiers due to improper impedance matching because of the lies that some speaker companies tell about their speakers. If they told the truth, then when a robust amplifier is needed, the consumer would know. As it is now, unless a speaker is revięwed and measured, one will generally have no idea what the impedance characteristics are of the speakers one buys, and consequently one will have no idea of what is needed to drive them.

One of the examples I gave above about an honest company is one with very low impedance ratings for many of their speakers: Apogee. Some are as low as 1 ohm nominally. I am very happy that they told the truth, rather than selling low impedance speakers to people whose amplifiers are not up to the task. That is an example of a good company. Just imagine how many amplifiers people would destroy with such speakers if they lied and called them 8 ohms instead.

It would be completely wrong to blame amplifier manufacturers for the lies that many speaker companies tell. The amplifier manufacturers have no control over what the speaker companies say about their speakers, so it is ridiculous to blame them for that.

I've never heard of anyone who has damaged an amplifier due to a speaker load, though I have heard of damaged drivers from clipping. Is this really a problem?

I also had a set of speakers, the original Legacy Focus, that had their impedance drop to well below 2 ohms smack dab in the bass octaves (mine were measured), and Legacy rated it as 4 ohm design, which would fall into your damn-liars category, yet I never heard of anyone who damaged an amp due to Legacy's... lack of complete information.

 

[TLS Guy]

There are standards, but, it would seem, not ones required by law. For example:



Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now, if you are right that there is no standard for nominal impedance, then specifying any nominal impedance is dishonest, since it is pretending to mean something when it does not.

Frankly, I would be happy if the above equation were required by law to be the way that nominal impedances were done, instead of, apparently, letting manufacturers make up anything they want.

As things are now, people have damaged amplifiers due to improper impedance matching because of the lies that some speaker companies tell about their speakers. If they told the truth, then when a robust amplifier is needed, the consumer would know. As it is now, unless a speaker is revięwed and measured, one will generally have no idea what the impedance characteristics are of the speakers one buys, and consequently one will have no idea of what is needed to drive them.

One of the examples I gave above about an honest company is one with very low impedance ratings for many of their speakers: Apogee. Some are as low as 1 ohm nominally. I am very happy that they told the truth, rather than selling low impedance speakers to people whose amplifiers are not up to the task. That is an example of a good company. Just imagine how many amplifiers people would destroy with such speakers if they lied and called them 8 ohms instead.

It would be completely wrong to blame amplifier manufacturers for the lies that many speaker companies tell. The amplifier manufacturers have no control over what the speaker companies say about their speakers, so it is ridiculous to blame them for that.

It is the receiver manufacturers fault. These unstable output stages discourage good and proper speaker design.

Note to the public, assume every speaker is four ohms or less and you usually will be correct.

If there is more than one woofer or bass mid, it is four ohms or less, you can go to the bank with that.

Heck, B & W rate the 800D as an eight ohm speaker, when in fact it is less than four ohms, about 3.5 where it counts, when you figure in phase angles.

Peter Walker was designer of both amps and speakers. His view was that amplifiers should be stable under ALL loads. He was right about most things and especially that.

Its not sensible to have all these units out there, that you have to worry are incompatible with the majority of speakers in the world.

As long as devices are produced with output devices smaller than a finger nail, this will continue. The devices are only a fraction of the size found in the two channel receivers of the 70 and 80s. As I have said before, this is a recent phenomenon. The speakers have not changed, the output stages have and that has caused this problem. Dance round this issue all you want, but it won't change the facts.

I would bet you would have pretty close to 100% of speaker designers agree with me on this.

New motto for amp stages. "Stable under all loads."

 

[Irvrobinson]

It is the receiver manufacturers fault. These unstable output stages discourage good and proper speaker design.

Note to the public, assume every speaker is four ohms or less and you usually will be correct.

If there is more than one woofer or bass mid, it is four ohms or less, you can go to the bank with that.

Heck, B & W rate the 800D as an eight ohm speaker, when in fact it is less than four ohms, about 3.5 where it counts, when you figure in phase angles.

Peter Walker was designer of both amps and speakers. His view was that amplifiers should be stable under ALL loads. He was right about most things and especially that.

Its not sensible to have all these units out there, that you have to worry are incompatible with the majority of speakers in the world.

As long as devices are produced with output devices smaller than a finger nail, this will continue. The devices are only a fraction of the size found in the two channel receivers of the 70 and 80s. As I have said before, this is a recent phenomenon. The speakers have not changed, the output stages have and that has caused this problem. Dance round this issue all you want, but it won't change the facts.

I would bet you would have pretty close to 100% of speaker designers agree with me on this.

New motto for amp stages. "Stable under all loads."

You and I will never be "receiver people", but there will always be a market for compromised, lower-cost designs that work fine about 99% of the time. To these folks my response is caveat emptor.