March 2025

How Things Measure
Pretending to represent defendants of science and public interest.
Editorial By J. Martins

  As I was walking at an accelerated pace along the Las Vegas Strip for another CES 2025 meeting, while passing in front of Harrah's, the sound of a street musician playing saxophone over a pre-recorded music track inevitably captured my attention. The music was loud enough to mix perfectly with the acoustic sound of the instrument and provided a pleasant background for all those passing by on that cold January morning. As I glanced at his setup, a fairly large battery powered speaker stood out on the floor, still with large, colorful retail stickers proclaiming "2500 Watts!" I couldn't help smiling as I tried to understand the unknown brand logo for the clunky apparatus.

Well, the brand doesn't really matter, because there's no lack of 2500W active speakers advertised online, as a quick search will reveal. Likewise, there's no lack of compact, portable Bluetooth speakers advertising 180W. You will need to reach for detailed specifications to learn that this is the "total amplification" resulting from 2x 40W woofers plus 4x 25W for full-range speakers. So, not even amplifier power, but effectively max-rated power for the drivers!

This fortuitous encounter in Las Vegas, NV, reminded me of a recent email I had received from a Class-D manufacturer, sharing a petition it had submitted in response to the Federal Trade Commission's amended "Trade Regulation Rule Relating to Power Output Claims for Amplifiers Utilized in Home Entertainment Products" (the "Amplifier Rule"). This FTC document was supposed to apply to products designed, tested, and manufactured on or after August 12, 2024. Apparently, the FTC had been busy trying to review and update a series of rules — some going back five decades — in an effort to "address certain deceptive or unfair acts or practices involving fake consumer reviews or testimonials," as well as "inaccurate advertised products' performance claims."

As this information reached my desk shortly after the results of the US elections were announced, and as I learned of the funny and useless debates this Amplifier Rule announcement had generated in popular audio forums, I couldn't help but feel amused about the whole thing.

As I reached out to our "council of wisdom" for further insight, I quickly realized how our audioXpress expert team also had survived, immune to the heated discussion going on in these unsound and largely anonymous congregations pretending to represent defendants of "science" and public interest. It wasn't without enjoyment that we all dived into the original proposed amendments to the long-forgotten 1974 "Amplifier Rule," requiring "sellers making power-related claims to calculate power output using uniform testing methods to allow consumers to easily compare amplifier sound quality."

Since these things tend to get noticed in Washington D.C., the proposed amendments that were supposed to become effective in August 2024 generated prompt response from the Consumer Technology Association (CTA), which submitted a petition to amend and delay the effectiveness of the ruling. By requesting the support of industry groups, including industry associations and the audio community, to urge the FTC to reopen the proceeding and fix the described amplifier testing procedure, the CTA successfully generated an outcry from those committed to the highest principles and standards for audio, which effectively would never agree to anything determined in the 1974 rule to start with. Effectively, the comments reflect the firm belief that ultra-scientific methods are much needed to "defend us" from those evildoers, which are all manufacturers that dare try to sell audio products and embark on promotional efforts of any of the "obviously mischievous" virtues of said products.

What I also learned in the process by reading the responses from our expert advisory team and the countless comments to the CTA petition is that this is such an impossible task as trying to explain audio amplifier ratings to the elected US president (and apparently anyone in his administration).

Lessons learned include: 

1) We will live with the 1974 original rule for a few more years. 

2) Wrong and hastily "amended" rules will never find applicability.

3) Class-D amplifiers require updated measurement conditions.

4) A standardized load impedance for the evaluation of stand-alone amplifiers is not applicable for evaluating amplifiers used as components in an active loudspeaker.

5) Speaker experts think that it would be better to drop power ratings altogether.

And more importantly,

6) Audio technology and consumer behavior have changed so much that regulating such matters requires a completely new approach.

7) The more "scientific" the rule, the more difficult it is for consumers to understand.

In the meantime, we can continue to be entertained by doing our own measurements and investing in better audio testing equipment. It's always about the journey.

J. Martins
Editor-in-Chief

Subscribe To audioXpress Magazine
Click here to subscribe to audioXpress magazine.