DCAudioDIY.com

DC Area Audio DIYer's Community
It is currently February 25th, 2020, 2:56 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: January 17th, 2020, 3:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: March 12th, 2013, 11:12 am
Posts: 575
https://testhifi.com/2020/01/17/woofer- ... uRsILgRNbE



Tom?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: January 17th, 2020, 3:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: July 24th, 2015, 4:17 pm
Posts: 994
Location: Parkville, Maryland
TubeDriver wrote:
https://testhifi.com/2020/01/17/woofer-size/?fbclid=IwAR3mwwdPzer3ZR4XPMpD9NGHQWywTe_Po90thhblF7q14FiyWuRsILgRNbE



Tom?


You can't ask a boy to do a man's job. Small woofers can get the job done if they're designed with enough peak-to-peak excursion. Carver did it with his Sunfire sub-woofer that seriously "pumped" air. The opposite of that was the Electrovoice Patrician 30-inch woofer. It didn't have to move much to get the same wok done.

I have a 15-inch sub (free air 20-Hz) in a slot-vented enclosure that has a maximum peak-to-peak excursion rating of 75-mm (almost 3-inches) good for 18-Hertz flat. My Altec 15-inch woofers (modified free-air 18-Hz.) have a mere fraction of that and just barely reach down to 30-Hertz (-3 db).

So -- it's just not size in terms of cone area -- but the overall design.

_________________
Walt


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: January 17th, 2020, 4:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: July 8th, 2016, 4:34 pm
Posts: 306
The acoustic radiation impedance of a large woofer is higher at the operating frequencies that that of a smaller woofer. It is better matched to the radiation impedance of the air.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... /spk2.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: January 17th, 2020, 4:28 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: February 28th, 2013, 10:38 am
Posts: 1232
TubeDriver wrote:
https://testhifi.com/2020/01/17/woofer-size/?fbclid=IwAR3mwwdPzer3ZR4XPMpD9NGHQWywTe_Po90thhblF7q14FiyWuRsILgRNbE


That explains why Maggies are so high in sensitivity. :angry-banghead:

_________________
I can explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: January 17th, 2020, 5:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: February 28th, 2013, 3:31 pm
Posts: 1247
First you have to start with the difference between efficiency and sensitivity because these two terms are batted around as being the same and they are not. Efficiency is the ratio of acoustic watts produced by an input of electrical watts. Note that the absolute value of input power is not specified, just the ratio. Sensitivity is the acoustical power created by a speaker for an input of 2.83 volts.

Where did he value of 2.83 volts come from? It represents the voltage that when applied to an 8 ohm load results in an input power of 1 watt. The formula is W = Vsquared/ohms. Therefore 2.83 squared = 8.0089 divided by 8 is essentially 1. Here is the rub, Now days with most speakers having an impedance below 8 ohms the sensitivity figure looks better on paper than the efficiency figure. For example, if you have an 8 ohm driver with a sensitivity of 87 dB and a 4 ohm speaker with a sensitivity of 90 dB you could assume that the 4 ohm speaker is more efficient. Not so. remember that sensitivity is specified at 2.83 volts. That 2.83 volts on the 8 ohm speaker represents an input power of 1W. Looking at the formula, the square of the input voltage is the same 8.0089 for both speakers but that value divided by the 8 ohms yields 1W while the same value divided by the 4 ohms yields 2W. Therefore the 4 ohm speaker is drawing twice the power from the amp. Twice the power to the driver results in a 3 dB increase in output. So, in reality, despite the apparent higher "efficiency" of the 4 ohm driver, it has the same real efficiency as the 8 ohm driver. All of this has nothing to do with low frequency response.

Output SPL is a function of volume velocity. Since we are listening in a space that is not pressurized, we are talking about frequency response, not pressure response. In this condition, for a given SPL, for every octave decrease in frequency, the speaker must produce 4 times the volume. Note that this has nothing to do with diaphragm size. You can get volume displacement by any combination of cone size and cone excursion. There are some real tradeoffs but that is the physical basis of volume vs frequency. Note that I am now not talking about efficiency.

Now let’s move to efficiency. You can start throwing bricks at me now but the efficiency of a driver to reproduce a given SPL at a given frequency has nothing to do with only the diaphragm size. If that is the case why do modern small bass drivers seem to have lower efficiency than large drivers from the 50s? You have to remember Hoffman's Iron Law. There are three parameters you can juggle, low bass response, small box size, and high efficiency. Pick any two but you can't have all three at the same time. Back in the days when a 10 watt amplifier was big stuff, speaker designers had to design drivers with high efficiencies to get reasonable SPLs with that low level of input power. To do that they made two major compromises. First, they compressed whatever magnetic strength was available into a very short gap making the flux density very high which helped produce larger forces for a given current. But that short gap limited excursion forcing the use of larger diaphragms to get the required displacement.

Second, they made the total moving mass of the driver light to produce more excursion for a given force. That light moving mass required a very compliant suspension to achieve a low resonant frequency below which the bass rolled off. With the very high compliance of the suspension, the compliance of the box quickly became an important factor. Small box volumes actually would have lower compliance than the suspension of the driver, resulting in an increase of resonant frequency in the box with poor bass extension as a result. To avoid this, they went to large boxes which reduced the resistance (increased the compliance) of the air keeping the resonant frequency low. Today, refrigerator sized speakers are simply not selling. I won't go into the physical tradeoffs necessary to get low bass in a small box but suffice it to say that the efficiency takes it in the shorts.

As you can see the various design choices of the old larger drivers resulted in higher efficiencies, not just the diaphragm size. Add to this other devices to get more SPL at certain frequencies such as horn loading, tuned ports, passive radiators, etc. and actual efficiency can increase but at times with substantial acoustic tradeoffs resulting.

I know this is yet another of my very long explanations, but you can’t give a simple answer to driver performance. And this explanation just touches on the myriad of parameters and design compromises that happen every day in the building of any speaker. There were very smart people in the past that made excellent choices based on the state of the art back then and also many very smart people today that can take advantages of new materials, amplifiers, DSP and other things to produce a wide range of speakers for people with different needs. It is always about the compromises and making informed choices.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: January 17th, 2020, 5:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: February 28th, 2013, 3:31 pm
Posts: 1247
brombo wrote:
The acoustic radiation impedance of a large woofer is higher at the operating frequencies that that of a smaller woofer. It is better matched to the radiation impedance of the air.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... /spk2.html

Yes and no. For a given velocity, a larger cone has a better impedance match to the air. However, if a smaller driver has to move further at the same frequency to achieve the same displacement to produce the same SPL, since that excursion is happening in the same time frame it has to have a higher velocity. Since impedance matching increases with the square of the velocity, in actuality the smaller driver at the higher velocity has the same impedance matching and thus the same output level. As an example, think of putting your hand out the window of a car moving at 30 mph and doing the same thing with the same sized hand at 60 mph. The impedance matching of the hand at 60 mph goes up by a factor of 4 and you have a harder time keeping your hand in the air stream.

Here again I'm not talking about all the other factors that affect efficiency, only that the impedance matching of any sized cone is also function of the velocity, not just cone size.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: January 17th, 2020, 5:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: July 8th, 2016, 4:34 pm
Posts: 306
Yes, but you want to limit the speaker excursion to a linear regime. I still think Klipshorns have the best bass.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: January 17th, 2020, 5:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: June 22nd, 2013, 11:00 am
Posts: 643
All things the same, what about single large woofer versus multiple small woofers?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: January 17th, 2020, 6:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: March 12th, 2013, 11:12 am
Posts: 575
:clap:


tomp wrote:
First you have to start with the difference between efficiency and sensitivity because these two terms are batted around as being the same and they are not. Efficiency is the ratio of acoustic watts produced by an input of electrical watts. Note that the absolute value of input power is not specified, just the ratio. Sensitivity is the acoustical power created by a speaker for an input of 2.83 volts.

Where did he value of 2.83 volts come from? It represents the voltage that when applied to an 8 ohm load results in an input power of 1 watt. The formula is W = Vsquared/ohms. Therefore 2.83 squared = 8.0089 divided by 8 is essentially 1. Here is the rub, Now days with most speakers having an impedance below 8 ohms the sensitivity figure looks better on paper than the efficiency figure. For example, if you have an 8 ohm driver with a sensitivity of 87 dB and a 4 ohm speaker with a sensitivity of 90 dB you could assume that the 4 ohm speaker is more efficient. Not so. remember that sensitivity is specified at 2.83 volts. That 2.83 volts on the 8 ohm speaker represents an input power of 1W. Looking at the formula, the square of the input voltage is the same 8.0089 for both speakers but that value divided by the 8 ohms yields 1W while the same value divided by the 4 ohms yields 2W. Therefore the 4 ohm speaker is drawing twice the power from the amp. Twice the power to the driver results in a 3 dB increase in output. So, in reality, despite the apparent higher "efficiency" of the 4 ohm driver, it has the same real efficiency as the 8 ohm driver. All of this has nothing to do with low frequency response.

Output SPL is a function of volume velocity. Since we are listening in a space that is not pressurized, we are talking about frequency response, not pressure response. In this condition, for a given SPL, for every octave decrease in frequency, the speaker must produce 4 times the volume. Note that this has nothing to do with diaphragm size. You can get volume displacement by any combination of cone size and cone excursion. There are some real tradeoffs but that is the physical basis of volume vs frequency. Note that I am now not talking about efficiency.

Now let’s move to efficiency. You can start throwing bricks at me now but the efficiency of a driver to reproduce a given SPL at a given frequency has nothing to do with only the diaphragm size. If that is the case why do modern small bass drivers seem to have lower efficiency than large drivers from the 50s? You have to remember Hoffman's Iron Law. There are three parameters you can juggle, low bass response, small box size, and high efficiency. Pick any two but you can't have all three at the same time. Back in the days when a 10 watt amplifier was big stuff, speaker designers had to design drivers with high efficiencies to get reasonable SPLs with that low level of input power. To do that they made two major compromises. First, they compressed whatever magnetic strength was available into a very short gap making the flux density very high which helped produce larger forces for a given current. But that short gap limited excursion forcing the use of larger diaphragms to get the required displacement.

Second, they made the total moving mass of the driver light to produce more excursion for a given force. That light moving mass required a very compliant suspension to achieve a low resonant frequency below which the bass rolled off. With the very high compliance of the suspension, the compliance of the box quickly became an important factor. Small box volumes actually would have lower compliance than the suspension of the driver, resulting in an increase of resonant frequency in the box with poor bass extension as a result. To avoid this, they went to large boxes which reduced the resistance (increased the compliance) of the air keeping the resonant frequency low. Today, refrigerator sized speakers are simply not selling. I won't go into the physical tradeoffs necessary to get low bass in a small box but suffice it to say that the efficiency takes it in the shorts.

As you can see the various design choices of the old larger drivers resulted in higher efficiencies, not just the diaphragm size. Add to this other devices to get more SPL at certain frequencies such as horn loading, tuned ports, passive radiators, etc. and actual efficiency can increase but at times with substantial acoustic tradeoffs resulting.

I know this is yet another of my very long explanations, but you can’t give a simple answer to driver performance. And this explanation just touches on the myriad of parameters and design compromises that happen every day in the building of any speaker. There were very smart people in the past that made excellent choices based on the state of the art back then and also many very smart people today that can take advantages of new materials, amplifiers, DSP and other things to produce a wide range of speakers for people with different needs. It is always about the compromises and making informed choices.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: January 17th, 2020, 6:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: February 28th, 2013, 3:31 pm
Posts: 1247
brombo wrote:
Yes, but you want to limit the speaker excursion to a linear regime. I still think Klipshorns have the best bass.

Yes, but in the old days 3 mm (my Bozak B199As) was considered a lot of excursion. Modern drivers routinely have linear excursions in excess ot 15mm. Some of the drivers approach 30mm XMax. Makes up for a lot of cone area. My call on Klipshorns is lots of mid bass with high sensitivity and impact but lacking in low bass.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group