Room-treatment marketing outpaces rigorous subjective testing

Evidence

For example it is stated frequently in advertisings that the noise emission of printer G is by 90% less than that of printer F. This is correct in physical terms of A-weighted sound power. However, the loudness difference perceived by the customer is only about 35%, in line with the indications by a loudness meter. … Therefore, reductions in noise emissions of products should be given in loudness ratios since with the exaggerating sound power ratios, in the end the public may no longer trust predictions of acoustic improvements. — Professor Dr.-Ing. Hugo Fastl, Professor Dr.-Ing. Eberhard, Psychoacoustics- Facts and Models, 1778 (#exemplifies, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Reputation matters but cannot substitute for direct experiential testing; Brand, cost, and prior exposure bias subjective audio judgments; A-weighted sound power exaggerates perceived loudness differences in marketing — Professor Dr.-Ing. Hugo Fastl, Professor Dr.-Ing. Eberhard, Psychoacoustics- Facts and Models, 1778 (+1 more)

Related

• A-weighted sound power exaggerates perceived loudness differences in marketing (similarity 0.85)
• A-weighted sound power ratios overestimate perceived loudness differences in noise emissions. (similarity 0.78)
• Noise reduction claims should use loudness ratios to stay credible (similarity 0.78)

Broader Connections

• A-weighted sound power exaggerates perceived loudness differences in marketing #exemplifies (0.82) — Professor Dr.-Ing. Hugo Fastl, Professor Dr.-Ing. Eberhard, Psychoacoustics- Facts and Models, 1778
• Reputation matters but cannot substitute for direct experiential testing #responds-to (0.80)
• Brand, cost, and prior exposure bias subjective audio judgments #responds-to (0.80)