User avatar
TrackerSirens
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 228
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 11:34 pm
Location: Ontario Canada
Contact: Website

Sun Mar 06, 2011 5:18 am

No, I got rid of it.
I read one of your mentioned topics, and it said this:
When it comes down to it, a city really can't sue over that and win.
But, I do agree. If I were running EM in a county, I would first do the math. Something EMAs don't do because it's too much work apparently.
Suspended User

User avatar
JasonC
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 3447
Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 5:49 pm
YouTube Username: Jsncrso
Location: OBX, NC

Sun Mar 06, 2011 5:29 am

Outdoor testing at 100' wouldn't be to problematic (given the short distance), but if you start testing readings thousands of feet out, you may as well start guessing numbers off the top of your head. I've measured 30db+ of difference from a Sentry 3v8 fire siren about a mile away from me. Sometimes it's so loud you can hear it over the tv indoors, other times I have been outside and not been able to hear it at all. Readings mean nothing if you can control (or at least record) the conditions. At that rate, you are no better off than sticking a mic inside the siren in an anechoic chamber. Atmospheric conditions can EXTREMELY affect decibel levels.

Edit: I went back and read. ANSI standards are for a 100' test. In my previous post I was referring more about longer range system tests (like 1000' or so), not the 100' which wouldn't be much of an issue. Regardless, it's a sure bet Federal fudges their numbers if you look at it the right way.

User avatar
SirenMadness
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 3757
Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 2:47 pm
Location: Windsor, Ontario
Contact: Website

Sun Mar 06, 2011 4:57 pm

Like Jason said, it wouldn't be very effective to do a long-distance reading, but comparing the frequencies of two different sirens of near-identical output can help in determining the better one. Of course, you will get a much better range with a T-128 - probably even a T-121 - than a 2001, due to the carrying power of a lower tone.
~ Peter Radanovic

User avatar
TrackerSirens
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 228
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 11:34 pm
Location: Ontario Canada
Contact: Website

Sun Mar 06, 2011 5:04 pm

That is correct, yes. You can probably get a better coverage radius from an STL-10 than you can a 2001-130. That being said, comparing omnidirectionals and directionals to each other is not a good way of comparison, since an omni spreads sound in all directions all the time while a directional focuses it's output in one direction at a given time.
Suspended User

Ryan45
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:04 am
Location: Winona, MN

Sun Mar 06, 2011 11:53 pm

Oh look another 2001 bashing thread :roll: Gets kinda old after awhile doesn't it?

User avatar
TrackerSirens
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 228
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 11:34 pm
Location: Ontario Canada
Contact: Website

Mon Mar 07, 2011 12:09 am

Ryan45 wrote:Oh look another 2001 bashing thread :roll: Gets kinda old after awhile doesn't it?
Hey, you can't help the fact that the 2001 was the used example here. I'd imagine they fridge up the numbers for the Modulator as well, possibly the Eclipse, DSA or even Model 2. But the 2001-130 came up because it wasn't ANSI tested. Believe me, 2001s get the job done, but they're not worth the price Federal charges, and they're committing fraud, since it was not approved the ANSI way.
SIRENMAN wrote:Bottom Line is that Federal Signal commit fraud every time they sell a siren.
Suspended User

User avatar
Crazywarriorman
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 1351
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 7:06 am
Real Name: Luke
YouTube Username: crazywarriorman
Location: Illinois

Mon Mar 07, 2011 12:16 am

Ryan45 wrote:Oh look another 2001 bashing thread :roll: Gets kinda old after awhile doesn't it?
You bet it does, +1 for you.
Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.

User avatar
TrackerSirens
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 228
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 11:34 pm
Location: Ontario Canada
Contact: Website

Mon Mar 07, 2011 12:23 am

This has gotten way off topic. It started off with testing sirens outside to calling the 2001-130 a fraud. While it may be true, that's not what I created this topic to talk about.
I created it to talk about testing sirens outdoors and it's effect on dBC ratings. Let's talk about that instead.
Suspended User

User avatar
SirenMadness
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 3757
Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 2:47 pm
Location: Windsor, Ontario
Contact: Website

Mon Mar 07, 2011 2:12 am

I personally like the 2001s. I have nothing against the product, just the figures backing it up. Even the fact that the 40V2T rose up by two decibels seems a little astounding to me, provided that nothing major has changed. Is it just me or could some companies have had an assortment of multiple test results, only to pick pick the highest one they got after a certain time has passed? Let's say a siren was tested a few times and registered between 126 and 128 decibels. At first, the company advertised the siren as producing 126 decibels, but a few years later they bumped that figure up to 128, and nothing in the siren has changed. It may sound like over-inflating the numbers, but if the siren does produce a sound output anywhere within that rather short deviation, is it really false advertising in the end?
~ Peter Radanovic

User avatar
TrackerSirens
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 228
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 11:34 pm
Location: Ontario Canada
Contact: Website

Mon Mar 07, 2011 2:17 am

That's the reason I suggested average. That way, they can be met in the middle, or somewhere near.
The 2001 series, while getting old, can certainly last. Look at the Roundbacks. They have lasted, and are doing their jobs just fine. The only part of the 2001 series I don't like are, again, the slightly-bogus numbers behind their name.
Suspended User

Return to “Main Outdoor Warning Sirens Board”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot] and 32 guests