Dell return policy - 15% restock on monitor with cheap speakers

I would have to agree, this is an issue of unrealistic expectations.

harrisonh said:   I would have to agree, this is an issue of unrealistic expectations.More like, unrealistic advertising. Anything good enough to "eliminate the need for external speakers" should sound really good, and Dell should either deliver something that lives up to the claims or give a 100% refund, including for all shipping costs.

marsilies said:   larrymoencurly said:   More like, unrealistic advertising. Anything good enough to "eliminate the need for external speakers" should sound really good, and Dell should either deliver something that lives up to the claims or give a 100% refund, including for all shipping costs.
It's not unrealistic advertising. The monitor certainly eliminates the "need" for external speakers, since it produces sound from the built-in speakers. If this sound isn't good enough, then certainly someone could want external speakers of better quality, but they aren't necessary for hearing sound from the computer.

One should never trust advertising anyway. If you read the reviews on Dell's site for the monitor, you'll see that several mention the poor sound quality:
http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&...
Not in this context because a claim was made comparing the quality of the built-in speakers to externals:

"integrated TrueMedia stereo speakers produce clear sound and eliminate the need for external speakers or wiring."

The negative reviews don't absolve Dell of responsibilitly, unless Dell put them in the claims.

marsilies said:   larrymoencurly said:   Not in this context because a claim was made comparing the quality of the built-in speakers to externals:

"integrated TrueMedia stereo speakers produce clear sound and eliminate the need for external speakers or wiring."
The speakers likely do produce clear sound. The OP didn't say anything about the sound being muffled or unclear, just tinny.Clear sound is more than just sound that lacks distortion, but it also produces almost all the highs and lows accurately (low distortion, no big peaks or valleys), and it's unlikely thgose built-in speakers can reproduce anything below 80-100 Hz, meaning all the bass drum and bass guitar sound can be completely inaudible.

larrymoencurly said: The negative reviews don't absolve Dell of responsibilitly, unless Dell put them in the claims.
marsilies said:   Dell likely didn't write the copy either. Product descriptions on websites are the digital equivalent to what's written on the box in a physical store. The whole point of the reviews is to give the observant consumer the benefit of opinions from other fellow shoppers, to contrast that with manufacturer claims.Dell approved the copy. OTOH reviews aren't part of the hustle, unless they're from shills.

marsilies said:   larrymoencurly said:   Clear sound is more than just sound that lacks distortion, but it also produces almost all the highs and lows accurately (low distortion, no big peaks or valleys)...
That might be your definition of "clear sound," but it isn't an industry-standard definition. There doesn't appear to be any standard definition for what "clear sound" actually entails.Yeah, there is. Ask any recording engineer.

marsilies said:   This is perhaps why the term was used. So while the speakers may not live up to your standard, the copy isn't actually a lie."isn't actually a lie." Noble weasel word.

The advertisement is aimed at customers, so the customers' standards apply, unless they're unreasonable or Dell had cited an industry standard or obviously meant Clear Sound (the church of Scientology's version of THX-1138 or Dolby). And it's reasonable to conclude that speakers built into a monitor don't sound like externals.

marsilies said:   larrymoencurly said:   marsilies said:   That might be your definition of "clear sound," but it isn't an industry-standard definition. There doesn't appear to be any standard definition for what "clear sound" actually entails.Yeah, there is. Ask any recording engineer.Are you a sound engineer? I'm sure they have their own definitions for what constitutes "clear sound," but it's not a standard, and certainly not a quantifiable one.No, I'm not, and yes, their definitions are the standard for clear sound.marsilies said:   Monitors already have plenty of specs, even those with numbers, that aren't standardized. Monitors list light output in lumens, but there isn't a standard for measuring the lumens. They list contrast ratios, but again no standard for measuring it. They list pixel response time with no standard as well. So all these easily quantifiable specs are practically useless due to the inability to compare them in any useful way to other models by other manufacturers.False. There are standards for measuring brightness, contrast, and pixel response time, and AVSforum.com has discussed them, with lots of criticism about advertised claims for contrast ratios.
marsilies said:   And yet you decide to get upset that they also included a vague and unquantifiable term like "clear sound."Siding against liars in marketing is not the same as being upset.

marsilies said:   The one quantifiable spec the monitor does have for the sound is the wattage rating, 2W. With that info, I'm sure the speakers built in sound as well as a pair of external 2W speakers would.Is that the only quantifiable spec the SMPTE or the IHF ever put out? And which speaker watt rating do you mean -- Music power, IHF watts, or do you favor RMS watts?

The recording industry did a lot of research about sound quality perception, probably starting in the 1920s, and by the 1940s pretty much quantified what constituted accurate sound reproduction for human perception. How do you think they came up with the loudness control, just by guessing or by being purely arbitrary?

marsilies said:   Now, one would hope that Dell, when a customer is returning an item because a vague claim by the item doesn't live up to the customer's standards, would wave the standard restocking fees. But to expect great sound from 2W speakers, built-in or not, seems a bit much.But Dell said their monitor's speakers would sound as good as externals, so they should sound as good as typical external speakers. No seller should be allowed to get away with the kind of unrealistic exaggerations Dell did or make the customer pay for its mistakes.

marsilies said:   larrymoencurly said:   No, I'm not [sound engineer], and yes, their definitions are the standard for clear sound.OK, so what are their definitions, are they and industry standard for sound engineers, and why can't I find them online?Are you a librarian with the Phoenix library system? How about Audio magazine (not its current incarnation), Douglas Self books, or applications notes from linear IC companies (National Semi. had a bunch). But because you don't see any reason for manufacturers to follow standard definitions, why are you asking?

larrymoencurly said:   False. There are standards for measuring brightness, contrast, and pixel response time, and AVSforum.com has discussed them, with lots of criticism about advertised claims for contrast ratios.marsilies said:   Which is my point. Whatever standards AVSforum follows, they're not a standard manufacturers are required to follow when testing and advertising their products. You can't trust what a monitor manufacturers claim for brightness, contrast, and response time, so why would you expect to be able to trust their claims for sound?So why did Dell make its product claims public, if not to be trusted by consumers? And standards exist to allow quality to be measured and compared with more accuracy and objectivity than infomercial truth.

larrymoencurly said: Siding against liars in marketing is not the same as being upset.marsilies said:   But you are siding against one particular product's claim for sound, when you probably wouldn't have given a second glance to its claims about its video, or any other monitor's claims at all. When you consider marketing to consist of "liars" why would you expect their claims about internal speakers to be any more honest than any other claim?You're using the "everybody does it" excuse, one of the lowest standards to ever be cited. marsilies said:   Note that I'm not saying that its a good thing the claims made on box copy or product descriptions don't always live up to real world expectations. I'm saying that you shouldn't take those descriptions at face value, and this has been known for decades if not more.If not at face value, then at what value? Ethically, claims voluntarily made public are promises.
larrymoencurly said: Is that the only quantifiable spec the SMPTE or the IHF ever put out? And which speaker watt rating do you mean -- Music power, IHF watts, or do you favor RMS watts? marsilies said:   The product description says its "Output Power / Channel".So should it be the FTC's legal requirement for advertising audio power output, a standard that's been in force since the mid-1970s?
larrymoencurly said: But Dell said their monitor's speakers would sound as good as externals...
marsilies said:   No they didn't, and it'd be absolutely insane for anyone to suggest that the monitor speakers would sound as good as any external speakers.That's low of you to call somebody insane; it's on the level of a mudslinging politician.

Dell said their monitor speakers produce clear sound and eliminate need for external speakers, and that implies the monitor's speakers are as good. Very likely, the monitor's speakers produce almost no bass, meaning the sound won't be clear because there won't be any sound for bass.
marsilies said:   The manufacturer (not Dell) said that it removes the need for external speakers, which it does on a technical level.No.

marsilies said:   larrymoencurly said:   marsilies said:   OK, so what are their definitions, are they and industry standard for sound engineers, and why can't I find them online?Are you a librarian with the Phoenix library system? How about Audio magazine (not its current incarnation), Douglas Self books, or applications notes from linear IC companies (National Semi. had a bunch). But because you don't see any reason for manufacturers to follow standard definitions, why are you asking?
So you're saying that the standard exists, but it's not readily available? What use is that to consumers? BTW, I can't find any application notes referring to "clear sound" from National Semi: http://www.national.com/apnotes/appnotes_all_1.html

And I didn't say the manufacturers shouldn't follow standards when possible, I think it'd be incredible helpful if they established more standards and followed them. I was pointing out that they don't follow any single standard for a number of aspects of their products, so it's not surprising that they don't follow one for "clear sound".Of course not, but a bad search that turns up nothing isn't proof that nothing exists. You need articles about human hearing and audio reproduction requirements, without necessarily using those terms literally.

larrymoencurly said: And which speaker watt rating do you mean -- Music power, IHF watts, or do you favor RMS watts?So should it be the FTC's legal requirement for advertising audio power output, a standard that's been in force since the mid-1970s?
I don't get this. I was listing what the product said. If there's an FTC standard that products have to conform to when advertising audio power output, then I assume the manufacturer is using that standard for its spec listing. According to Wikipedia, it'd be in RMS watts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_power#US

"RMS watts" is a legal nonsense term, which is why I added the . You can measure watts with RMS volts and RMS amps, but that won't give RMS watts.

marsilies said:   larrymoencurly said:   marsilies said:   So you're saying that the standard exists, but it's not readily available? What use is that to consumers? BTW, I can't find any application notes referring to "clear sound" from National Semi: http://www.national.com/apnotes/appnotes_all_1.html

And I didn't say the manufacturers shouldn't follow standards when possible, I think it'd be incredible helpful if they established more standards and followed them. I was pointing out that they don't follow any single standard for a number of aspects of their products, so it's not surprising that they don't follow one for "clear sound".Of course not, but a bad search that turns up nothing isn't proof that nothing exists. You need articles about human hearing and audio reproduction requirements, without necessarily using those terms literally.
Can you provide any of said articles of audio reproduction requirements? Again, I can't find them on my own, at least none that apply to your claim. And yes, not being able to find evidence isn't absolute proof that something doesn't exist, it seems particularly damning that a term you claim has an industry-wide standard applied to it, something that would be potentially helpful to consumers when shopping for audio equipment, is not readily available online. This is in contrast to something like the terms "refresh rate" and "response rate," which despite not having an industry-wide standard for their measurement, still turn up a plethora of definitions and explanations when googling them (including mentions that there isn't an industry-wide standard).
http://lcdtvbuyingguide.com/lcdtv/120hz-240hz-60hz.html

To re-iterate, it was you you stated that the specific term "clear sound" had an industry-wide standard definition, and that the product description was thus incorrectly using that term if it didn't follow that definition. Yet you've provided evidence that your claim is true. The burden of proof is on you to substantiate your claim.You were the one who said Dell didn't do anything wrong. The burden of proof is on you to substantiate your claim.

larrymoencurly said:   marsilies said:   larrymoencurly said: And which speaker watt rating do you mean -- Music power, IHF watts, or do you favor RMS watts?larrymoencurly said: So should it be the FTC's legal requirement for advertising audio power output, a standard that's been in force since the mid-1970s?
I don't get this. I was listing what the product said. If there's an FTC standard that products have to conform to when advertising audio power output, then I assume the manufacturer is using that standard for its spec listing. According to Wikipedia, it'd be in RMS watts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_power#US

"RMS watts" is a legal nonsense term, which is why I added the . You can measure watts with RMS volts and RMS amps, but that won't give RMS watts.
This isn't really helpful. I don't know the technical terms. Again, the product lists a power rating in its specs. I assume this power rating conforms to any legal standard the US has for advertising power ratings. Unless you're suggesting manufacturer is lying about the power rating, it would be reasonable to compare the internal speakers to externals of the same standard power rating. To my mind, the 2W internal speaker thus likely compare similarly to 2W external speakers, and expecting them to beat out external speakers of higher power ratings is likely unreasonable.
It was helpful because you now know not to use the nonsense term "RMS watts" or use the search term "clear sound" to find articles about sound clarity.

If manufacturers were totally honest about power ratings, why did they invent "music power" and "IHF power" ratings -- to tell the truth better? I have some ancient speakers rated 50W "music" power, but their instructions warned against feeding over 8W continuous average power for over 30 or 60 seconds at a time. BTW an external speaker fed 2W of continuous average power can put out pretty loud sound, around 90-93dB.

Don't rely on lame buying guides or Wiki articles written by people who don't understand or care about the subjects of their articles. Instead try Audio magazine (as I mentioned), Popular Electronics, Electronics World (or better yet, Electronics World), Elektor, or Wireless World. Many articles about human sound perception came out soon after new technology was introduced to the market, such as stereo, different types of speakers, transistorized amplifiers (transistor vs. tube sound argument), Dolby, 4-channel, digital (including imperfect compression methods, like MPEG), and surround sound. Here's a book that discusses a lot of the digital consumer product audio-video stuff and has references for more information:

http://www.abebooks.com/Digital-Consumer-Electronics-Handbook-Ro...

wow! you guys need to get over this

marsilies said:   larrymoencurly said:   You were the one who said Dell didn't do anything wrong. The burden of proof is on you to substantiate your claim.Ever hear of innocent until proven guilty? People in marketing are always guilty, and it's pretty clear they were being deceptive weasels in this case.

marsilies said:   Also, I never said Dell has never done anything wrong. I'm sure they've made mistakes.This wasn't a mistake but deliberate deception or, at best, very irresponsible enthusiasm.

marsilies said:   As for whether the term "clear sound" has a standard definition, I can't find it, but as the other saying goes, "you can't prove a negative." I can't find evidence that definitively proves that ghosts don't exist, but that doesn't mean I should believe in them. The burden of proof isn't on proving they don't exist, but on proving that they do, with the default, skeptical position being that they don't, unless evidence proves otherwise.

As for searching for a definition for "clear sound," I did that because it's that specific term that you took issue with in the product description, claiming that there's an industry-wide standard for that specific term that the manufacturer could potentially be violating. I don't care about the wide range of thoughts about sound clarity and how it's changed over the years, I care about that specific term and how it applies to the product at hand.I didn't expect you to be so literal and search for clear sound®©™*, and I deliberately avoided searching that term because I didn't want to read rants against psychotherapy. But if I had no good hits with "clear sound", I would have tried searches about human hearing and perception or audio quality, and I assumed you would have done something like that, too. I did mention Audio magazine, which you could have checked, but soon after any new audio technology came out, like stereo, transistor amplifiers (tube vs. transistor sound arguments), new types of speakers, Dolby, 4-channel sound, digital, and digital compression, there were a lot of articles about it in the audio and hobby electronics magazines, including Popular Electronics, Electronics World, Electronics World (the better one), Wireless World, Audio Amateur/AudioXpress. Disregard the illegitimate magazines, like Stereophile, Absolute Sound, and StereOpus. Also try articles by or about Walter Jung, Bascom H. King, W. Marshall Leach, and this guy in the red zoot suit.

marsilies said:   It was helpful because you now know not to use the nonsense term "RMS watts" or use the search term "clear sound" to find articles about sound clarity. I used the nonsense term RMS watts only because you did first, and were decidedly unclear on its usage.

Either there's a specific definition for that term that meets clear standards for specs, or like "music power," it's a nonsense term with no clear definition that the manufacturer can be in violation of.I don't like the rating "music power", but it's not a completely nonsensical term but is an industry standard measurement. I don't know if it's the same as IHF power, another industry standard, but music power is either average continuous power multiplied by a certain amount (sort of the way air compressor horsepower used to be), or it's a very power rating for a short burst of sound. I have some speakers rated 50W music power, but the instructions warn against applying more than 8W average continuous power for more than either 30 or 60 seconds.

marsilies said:   Finally, while you claim to be more knowledgeable about things like sound clarity and such,Actually you don't think I'm more knowledgeable than anyone about this, and your statement is false because the only expertise I've ever claimed was in regards sitting on my arse in a recliner -- literally; years ago, I wrote just that, here or in another website's forums.

marsilies said:   and you likely are, you're doing a horrible job of conveying it.Thank you.

marsilies said:   Your arguments are decidedly general and your citations incredibly vague and unhelpful. If you want to use application notes from National Semi as a reference, than reference at least one specific one that provides evidence for your position. If you want to cite a book, cite a relevant page or even quote it. As it is it just looks like you're throwing out random references and going, "well, I know the proof is there somewhere."Really, you should have been able to find something at National Semi, considering all the audio chips they put out, but it's possible their website didn't allow searching inside their application notes but only for the titles, so you'd have to look up some of those audio chips, like the LM381. Also try "floobydust", either there or on the web.

marsilies said:   larrymoencurly said:   People in marketing are always guilty, and it's pretty clear they were being deceptive weasels in this case.Saying "what they said is a lie because they're liars," isn't good reasoning. Even liars tell the truth occasionally.It's practical reasoning, and in this case the liars did lie.

larrymoencurly said:   marsilies said:   As for searching for a definition for "clear sound," I did that because it's that specific term that you took issue with in the product description, claiming that there's an industry-wide standard for that specific term that the manufacturer could potentially be violating. I don't care about the wide range of thoughts about sound clarity and how it's changed over the years, I care about that specific term and how it applies to the product at hand.I didn't expect you to be so literal and search only for clear sound®©™*, and I deliberately avoided searching that term myself because I didn't want to read rants against psychotherapy. But if I had no good hits with "clear sound", I would have....marsilies said:   See, this is part of the problem. You're not backing up any of your claims yourself. You've told me to go look for it, and I can't find it. Given the plethora of materials out there, it's odd that you're not willing or able to turn up anything concrete.Given the plethora of materials out there, it's odd that you haven't been able to find anything about what you're asking, while I have. I'm going by what I remember, and I don't remember exact URLs or ISBN numbers. I gave you the names of several magazines, most of which have their own annual indexes that are easier to use than Google.

marsilies said:   And again, the term "clear sound" is the specific phrase that you took issue with the product description, and claimed there was an industry-wide standard in place regarding its use. That's the phrase in contention.Monitor speakers don't give clear sound, and Dell implied they were using the normal definition of "clear sound". Are you sure you have no affiliation with the people behind clear sound®©™* ?

marsilies said:   For the record, I also tried looking up "sound clarity," and possibly a few other terms, but nothing comes up for those either.What do you think of the NASA filter (one of the hits when I tried that)? I don't know why you're coming up dry when even one of the first 3 search hits I tried at the start of this thread mentioned Fletcher-Munson curves. No, I didn't type "Fletcher Munson" or anything about loudness. BTW the links in that Wiki article point to more info about sound quality, perhaps the kind of information you were looking for.

larrymoencurly said:   Really, you should have been able to find something at National Semi...marsilies said:   Again, part of the problem. You seem certain that such a standard definition exists, but can't provide any evidence.I said before, use some common sense and realize that monitor speakers just don't sound like external speakers; it's mostly because they provide no bass.

larrymoencurly said:   ..you'd have to look up some of those audio chips, like the LM381.I don't see anything that would be referencing a standard for "clear sound" or anything like it in this application note: http://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/lm381.pdfWhat did they say about signal:noise, distortion, and frequency response, all which determine clear sound? They had to mention something about noise, in addition to the chip specs, because one of their examples is a pre-amplifier for vinyl records.

larrymoencurly said:   Also try "floobydust", either there or on the web.I don't know if this is a joke or not. "Floobydust" just means miscellaneous. http://www.advanced.pro/floobydust.htmHere's a footnote from National's "floobydust" chapter:

Ashley, J.R., "On the Transient Response of Ideal Crossover Networks," Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, v. 10, n. 3, July 1962

I'm not smart enough to understand the joke there.

marsilies said:   larrymoencurly said:   ...in this case the liars did lie.You haven't proven that.Monitor speakers sound just like external speakers!!! Nobody can tell the difference!!!

larrymoencurly said:   Given the plethora of materials out there, it's odd that you haven't been able to find anything about what you're asking, while I have. I'm going by what I remember, and I don't remember exact URLs or ISBN numbers....marsilies said:   Is it that hard to track them down again? Search your browser history. So far, your inability to come up with any specific reference or quote leads me to severely doubt your claim.My search history doesn't go back to the 1980s and 1990s, when I read most of that stuff, much which was already old even back then.

larrymoencurly said:   marsilies said:   And again, the term "clear sound" is the specific phrase that you took issue with the product description, and claimed there was an industry-wide standard in place regarding its use. That's the phrase in contention.Monitor speakers don't give clear sound, and Dell implied they were using the normal definition of "clear sound". marsilies said:   What is the normal definition of "clear sound?" What is the standard that phrase has to meet in order to be used? As far as I can find, there isn't one. You claim there is one, but then dither about when asked for evidence.OK, some numbers that are commonly accepted as clear sound: 20-20,000 Hz flat within 1/2 dB and no more than 1% harmonic distortion at any power level, with the noise being at least 1,000 times weaker than the sound at any volume. I don't know what levels of other types of distortion are audible.

larrymoencurly said:   What do you think of the NASA filter (one of the hits when I tried that)?
I don't know, you haven't provided a link. Searching myself, are you perhaps referring to this?
http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20080006954&qs=N%3D429473...

Because that article is not helpful. It doesn't define "clear sound," and I don't think it even uses the word "clear" in it once.That's not the article I was thinking of. Mine was about a device for making voices sound clear and had a male/female switch.

larrymoencurly said:   I don't know why you're coming up dry when even one of the first 3 search hits I tried at the start of this thread mentioned Fletcher-Munson curves. No, I didn't type "Fletcher Munson" or anything about loudness. BTW the links in that Wiki article point to more info about sound quality, perhaps the kind of information you were looking for.Fletcher–Munson curves pertain to loudness, not clarity. And there are other articles on wiki pertaining to sound quality which is ultimately subjective, but no article about sound clarity, or "clear sound."I mentioned that article only to show how easy it was to find fairly detailed technical information about hearing perception and sound quality, and notice the links at the bottom did address other aspects of sound quality.

larrymoencurly said:   http://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/lm381.pdf
What did they say about signal:noise, distortion, and frequency response, all which determine clear sound? They had to mention something about noise, in addition to the chip specs, because one of their examples is a pre-amplifier for vinyl records.
It mentions noise, distortion, and frequency response, but it doesn't say whether those determine clear sound or not, or what levels or ranges for those properties would constitute clear sound.

larrymoencurly said:   Here's a footnote from National's "floobydust" chapter:

Ashley, J.R., "On the Transient Response of Ideal Crossover Networks," Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, v. 10, n. 3, July 1962That's not helpful either. From the abstract there's no mention of sound clarity or what constitutes "clear sound."It should have helped you realized that audio floobydust wasn't just a joke, as you suspected it was.

marsilies said:   Again, you claimed there was an industry-wide standard for the term, that a specific set of properties and specifications must be met in order for something to be advertised as having "clear sound." Nothing you have provided or suggested is evidence of your claim being true. The fact that it's so hard to find any definition for what it means to have clear sound makes it highly doubtful that, even if a definition is found in an obscure journal, there's a industry-wide standard that must be conformed to for advertising purposes.Show me one legitimate audio industry standard or even the judgement of any musician with good hearing that would say speakers with a fairly flat bandwidth of 100-15,000Hz would be considered high fidelity for music because that's probably the best response of speakers built into monitors that aren't super huge. I admit I don't have a legal, industry-wide definition of "super huge".

marsilies said:   At best, what counts as "clear sound" seems to be merely a subjective determination. While you and the OP may not agree with the monitor's description that the internal speakers provide "clear sound," that's just a contrary opinion, not an objective truth the manufacturer lied about.Reasonable to sales people and lawyers, or reasonable to musicians?

Surely the lengths of the most recent posts have set some sort of record?

marsilies said:   larrymoencurly said:   Monitor speakers sound just like external speakers!!! Nobody can tell the difference!!!marsilies said:   Neither I nor the manufacturer made such claims.There's a time to take things literally, and there's a time not to.

marsilies said:   In any case, those statements are so general that they can't be proven either true or untrue. Certainly, some internal speakers may sound better than some external speakers. Certainly that you don't think that all external speakers will always sound better than any internal speakers.Do you honestly believe that was the impression Dell was trying to give, that their monitor's speakers were better than only the very worst externals?

marsilies said:   As for people telling the difference, hearing is subjective and variable. Just look at MP3 compression and the widespread use of 128kbps as an acceptable bitrate and you can reasonably conclude that there may be some people that wouldn't tell the difference between a standard set of external computer speakers (the kind included free with a PC purchase, or bought for $10 at a store) and the internals on this monitor, and there's probably many more people who just don't care.That was my point -- audio quality standards are based on studies of human hearing perception that have been done since at least the 1930s, and whenever new technology comes out, the engineers want it to satisfy at least those standards. They were really worried about audible artifacts being introduced by compression methods, like MP3, when they were developed in the 1980s and 1990s. And while there are lots of people who don't care about 3-5% distortion and who set the tone controls for really weird treble and bass, almost everybody can tell the difference between internal and external speakers and prefers the sound of externals because internals reproduce bass so badly that they often make entire recording tracks inaudible.

larrymoencurly said:   My search history doesn't go back to the 1980s and 1990s, when I read most of that stuff, much which was already old even back then.marsilies said:   If it's decades old and hard to find on the internet, that means it's likely either obscure, outdated, or both. And I also don't find it reasonable to trust your, at least, 20-year-old memory to accurately recount that material.Did try at all to read about Jim Bonjiorno (they guy in the zoot suit)?

Some of the technology became obsolete because of digital, including Dolby and other noise-reduction processing and 4-channel sound, but you can easily find information about them, and they did improve knowledge about hearing perception because engineers were trying to get the most out of limits of technology. For example, matrix encoded 4-channel probably contributed to modern surround sound because of the research about psychoacoustics, and one matrix decoder was probably the most complex chip in the world in the early-mid 1970s.

larrymoencurly said:   OK, some numbers that are commonly accepted as clear sound: 20-20,000 Hz flat within 1/2 dB and no more than 1% harmonic distortion at any power level, with the noise being at least 1,000 times weaker than the sound at any volume. marsilies said:   That's certainly a definition. Do you have any evidence that this is a "commonly accepted" definition, as you claim? More importantly, do you have any evidence that this definition is an industry-wide standard that manufacturers are legally required to conform to for marketing purposes?It's a very common definition, counselor.

larrymoencurly said:   Show me one legitimate audio industry standard or even the judgement of any musician with good hearing...marsilies said:   Again, you're the one that claimed a standard, not I, a claim you have yet to back up. As I already stated, I'm sure audio professionals may have their own judgments of what constitutes "clear sound," but unless they're citing an industry standard, it's just a difference of opinion regarding the manufacturer claim's, not proof of a lie.And because audio engineers are the experts, they should determine the definition of "clear sound".

And Dell didn't exactly try hard to tell the truth about its speakers.

yesidonoitall said:   Surely the lengths of the most recent posts have set some sort of record?
I think the final post in this thread is much longer (and yes, it's by me):
http://www.fatwallet.com/forums/technology/1090418/

As that thread can attest to, I'm a huge fan of citing references to back up one's claims. I also tend to not like taking other people at their word, since as that thread shows, a person can simply be wrong about something when you go and check the facts.

For this thread, I am actively trying to cut down on my responses. It'd be ridiculously easy for me to argue back point-for-point, but I've been trying to cut back my responses to only the points that I view are most salient.

larrymoencurly said:   I'm trying to be reasonable and use common sense, but I don't have a bibliography of everything I've read.
At this point, I'd be happy with one solid reference or cite for your claim regarding "clear sound". So far, they've either been too general (i.e. "read the last 30 years of these magazines!") or when they're specific, they don't pan out (like the LM381).

larrymoencurly said:   The tedium is the message.
Giving up?