Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
speaker efficiency
A acquaintance of mine is wanting to upgrade his amplifier, an EL34-based
tube amp wired in ultralinear configuration. I'm considering buying it, but am unsure if this amp's 20 wpc is enough to drive my Boston Acoustics T-830 speakers. Right now they're driven with a 50 wpc Harmon Kardon vintage solid state amp, and that setup can be played LOUD. If I purchased the tube amplifier, I'd likely want to rewire it in triode configuration which would halve my power output to around 10 wpc. Does anyone know the efficiency specs for the T-830 speakers, or any of the T-series BA loudspeakers from the early 90's? I have the original cartons but none of the literature that came with the speakers. Thanks Dave S. |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
speaker efficiency
On Oct 23, 7:51 pm, "Dave" wrote:
A acquaintance of mine is wanting to upgrade his amplifier, an EL34-based tube amp wired in ultralinear configuration. I'm considering buying it, but am unsure if this amp's 20 wpc is enough to drive my Boston Acoustics T-830 speakers. Right now they're driven with a 50 wpc Harmon Kardon vintage solid state amp, and that setup can be played LOUD. If I purchased the tube amplifier, I'd likely want to rewire it in triode configuration which would halve my power output to around 10 wpc. Does anyone know the efficiency specs for the T-830 speakers, or any of the T-series BA loudspeakers from the early 90's? I have the original cartons but none of the literature that came with the speakers. Thanks Dave S. Don't really need to know the efficiency. Going from 50 watts down to 10 is a gigantic loss of power. Every doubling of power raises the volume output of a system by only about 3 db. Your tube amp will be cranking at full rated power and be pushing the speakers at just above conversation level. And since it's running at full power, distortion will occur more readily for any slight increase in dynamics of the music. If you had some very effiicent horn speakers like Klipsh, then maybe. But with regular cone speakers? Don't do it. CD |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
speaker efficiency
On Oct 23, 6:51 pm, "Dave" wrote:
A acquaintance of mine is wanting to upgrade his amplifier, an EL34-based tube amp wired in ultralinear configuration. I'm considering buying it, but am unsure if this amp's 20 wpc is enough to drive my Boston Acoustics T-830 speakers. Right now they're driven with a 50 wpc Harmon Kardon vintage solid state amp, and that setup can be played LOUD. If I purchased the tube amplifier, I'd likely want to rewire it in triode configuration which would halve my power output to around 10 wpc. Does anyone know the efficiency specs for the T-830 speakers, or any of the T-series BA loudspeakers from the early 90's? I have the original cartons but none of the literature that came with the speakers. Thanks Dave S. Hmmm..... OK, let's do some basic math that is irrespective of speaker efficiency. Assume that BA speakers are relatively inefficient. So, let's figure say.... 86dB @ 1 watt. So, a 20-watt amp will be capable of giving you 99dB without clipping. A 40-watt amp will give you ~102dB, and a 50-watt amp will not make any perceptable difference to that 102. A 50-watt amp will be capable of giving you ~102/3 dB without clipping. 3dB is a very small increment relative to all things, one that you can definitely hear with normal hearing but not earth- shattering. 10 x the power = 2 x the volume perceived. So, 1 watt gives 86dB, 10 watts give 96dB, 100 watts gives 106dB. The calculations for the dB relationships a for a 10 to one relationship, the log of 10 is 1, and ten times 1 is 10. For the 2 to one relationship, the log of 2 is 0.3, and 10 times that is 3. Put another way, after 20 watts, the next truly meaningful increment as to headroom under normal conditions and normal listening levels is roughly 100 watts. The value of headroom decreases with the efficiency of the speaker. And it increases with the peak-to-average levels of the source material. Do a search on "watts to decibels" and you will get much useful information. But it comes down to the fact that there is little actual difference in capacity between amps say.... over 10 watts and under 50 watts under most conditions. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
speaker efficiency
On Oct 23, 11:21 pm, codifus wrote:
On Oct 23, 7:51 pm, "Dave" wrote: A acquaintance of mine is wanting to upgrade his amplifier, an EL34-based tube amp wired in ultralinear configuration. I'm considering buying it, but am unsure if this amp's 20 wpc is enough to drive my Boston Acoustics T-830 speakers. Right now they're driven with a 50 wpc Harmon Kardon vintage solid state amp, and that setup can be played LOUD. If I purchased the tube amplifier, I'd likely want to rewire it in triode configuration which would halve my power output to around 10 wpc. Does anyone know the efficiency specs for the T-830 speakers, or any of the T-series BA loudspeakers from the early 90's? I have the original cartons but none of the literature that came with the speakers. Don't really need to know the efficiency. Well, yes, you kinda do, especially given the assertion you make later on. Going from 50 watts down to 10 is a gigantic loss of power. Every doubling of power raises the volume output of a system by only about 3 db. Okay, then let's work that back. since dB = 10 log (P1/P2) an P1 = 50 and P2 = 10, then the loss in ultimate level, all other things being equal, would mean a loss of 7 dB. Is 7 dB a "gigantic loss in power?" Your tube amp will be cranking at full rated power and be pushing the speakers at just above conversation level. Now, indeed, you make an assertion that assumes you know the efficiency of the speakers. Or, from your assertion, we can derive the efficiency. Normal "conversation levels" are considered in the realm of 60-70 dB SPL (cf Kinsler, Frey, also Beranek, Olson, and confirmed by my own measurements). Let's assume that by "just above" you mean 3 dB, or twice the acoustic power. That would mean that you're, in effect, asserting the gentleman's speakers have an efficiency in the realm of around 65-70 dB SPL/watt, making them, far and away, the LEAST efficient speakers I have ever encountered. Instead, knowing the types of drivers used, we can probably reasonably assume a broad-band efficiency in the realm of 86 dB SPL @ 1 watt, fully 20 dB MORE efficient than is implicit in your claim, that would suggest that the system as he describes it should be capable of playing AT LEAST 30 dB LOUDER than "conversation levels," putting it in the realm of 95-100 dB before there's an issue. But with regular cone speakers? Don't do it. Since I would assert with reasonable confidence that MOST of the time he's listening with the amplifier coasting along at less than a watt, that there is absolutely NO reason whatsoever NOT to try it. |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
speaker efficiency
"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
... Opinion #1: information. But it comes down to the fact that there is little actual difference in capacity between amps say.... over 10 watts and under 50 watts under most conditions. Opinion #2 If you had some very effiicent horn speakers like Klipsh, then maybe. But with regular cone speakers? Don't do it. I need a third opinion here to break the deadlock. BTW, I found out that the efficiency is 88 db/w/m. Dave S. |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
speaker efficiency
"Dave" wrote in message
... A acquaintance of mine is wanting to upgrade his amplifier, an EL34-based tube amp wired in ultralinear configuration. I'm considering buying it, but am unsure if this amp's 20 wpc is enough to drive my Boston Acoustics T-830 speakers. Right now they're driven with a 50 wpc Harmon Kardon vintage solid state amp, and that setup can be played LOUD. If I purchased the tube amplifier, I'd likely want to rewire it in triode configuration which would halve my power output to around 10 wpc. Does anyone know the efficiency specs for the T-830 speakers, or any of the T-series BA loudspeakers from the early 90's? I have the original cartons but none of the literature that came with the speakers. Thanks Dave S. 1993 Audio Annual Equipment Buyer's Guide Boston Acoustics T-830: Frequency Response: 40Hz - 20kHz +/- 3dB SPL: 1 watt/1 meter / 88dB Recommended Min. amp power: 15 watts per channel |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
speaker efficiency
codifus wrote:
Don't really need to know the efficiency. Going from 50 watts down to 10 is a gigantic loss of power. Every doubling of power raises the volume output of a system by only about 3 db. Uh huh. So a 50 watt amp will be capable of 7db more output than a 10 watt amp. Is 7 db SPL too much to give up? Also, since the lower power amp is a tube amp, it won't sound as nasty if it's overdriven, so you can push it harder than a 10 watt solid state amp. //Walt |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
speaker efficiency
Walt writes:
codifus wrote: Don't really need to know the efficiency. Going from 50 watts down to 10 is a gigantic loss of power. Every doubling of power raises the volume output of a system by only about 3 db. Uh huh. So a 50 watt amp will be capable of 7db more output than a 10 watt amp. Is 7 db SPL too much to give up? Also, since the lower power amp is a tube amp, it won't sound as nasty if it's overdriven, so you can push it harder than a 10 watt solid state amp. The problem is that 7 dB is in a gray area. It's a pretty big drop, but it's not THAT big. How loud was "loud" in the original setup? If it was just "barely loud" then 7 dB would probably drop that to "not loud." In my opinion, 10 wpc on 88 dB SPL speakers is wimpie wimpie wimpie. But then I'm a Klipschorn owner... -- % Randy Yates % "How's life on earth? %% Fuquay-Varina, NC % ... What is it worth?" %%% 919-577-9882 % 'Mission (A World Record)', %%%% % *A New World Record*, ELO http://www.digitalsignallabs.com |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
speaker efficiency
On Oct 24, 6:51 pm, "Dave" wrote:
I need a third opinion here to break the deadlock. BTW, I found out that the efficiency is 88 db/w/m. Dave: Far be it from me to render a "third" opinion. Rather I would suggest that you check an independent source or two on the relationship between watts and decibels as it applies to your speakers. So, you will get 88dB at 1 watt at 1 meter from your BA speakers. 88dB is not LOUD, but it is substantially above conversational level, roughly 2x louder. 1 watt = 88dB 10 watts = 98dB 20 watts = 101dB 50 watts = 104/5 dB All other things being equal on those speakers. You will not miss the increment between 20 and 50 watts for two reasons one a bit esoteric, the other very practical: a) Tube amps clip softly. So, if you are listening at an average of one watt and your peak-to-average on your source is 20dB (well- recorded classical music will reach these standards), you will clip at the peaks but do no substantial damage to your speakers or the amp if clipping does not exceed... well... let's use an arbitrary 20% of the time - and even then damage is quite unlikely as output transformers will not pass DC. b) You will clip almost equally with a 50 watt amp with the same P/A source. However, a "vintage SS amp" *will* pass DC at clipping - which *will* damage the speakers eventually or immediately depending on the levels at the moment. So, you pays you money, you takes you chances. I would be far more skeptical of you going to UL at 10 watts and being satisfied unless you listen at pretty low levels and/or you listen to mostly compressed sources (P/A 10dB) if only because your speakers are energy pigs. As it happens, I really prefer piggish speakers personally, I have a pair of AR3as which are rated at 86dB, but then I feed them with a 300 watt solid-state amp (@ 4ohms), so headroom is not an issue. My more efficient speakers are perfectly happy being fed either from my Scott LK150, Dynaco ST-70 or ST-35 being 75, 35 and 15 wpc respectively, and tube amps. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
speaker efficiency
On Oct 24, 6:51 pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Peter Wieck" wrote in message ... Opinion #1: information. But it comes down to the fact that there is little actual difference in capacity between amps say.... over 10 watts and under 50 watts under most conditions. Opinion #2 If you had some very effiicent horn speakers like Klipsh, then maybe. But with regular cone speakers? Don't do it. I need a third opinion here to break the deadlock. BTW, I found out that the efficiency is 88 db/w/m. Well, there are opinions and there are opinions. In the realm of physics, not all opinions are created equal. The person who made the claims: "Don't really need to know the efficiency" "Your tube amp will be cranking at full rated power and be pushing the speakers at just above conversation level." Had no technical justification for these rather extraordinary claims. In addition, he provided numbers which contradicted his own claims. If you try it, and you're sane about it, meaning that if the music starts to sound too loud and distorted, it IS too loud and distorted, then the risk is VERY small. Yes, there are opinion. and there are physical facts. The physical facts are 1. there's a difference of 7 dB between the rated power of the two amplifiers. 2. At normal to moderately loud listening levels, with speakers with an 88 dB@1W sensitivity, you're no where near requiring 10 watts, much less 50 watts. 3. With only 10 watts per speaker, not only is the smaller amp capable of playing at level far above "conversational levels", it's capable of playing well at levels that would make conversation difficult, e.g., SPL's in the mid 90 dB realm or better in a typical domestic living situation in a room of 50 m^3 (1300 ft^3) sitting about 3m (9 ft) away from the speakers. 4. Boston Acoustics stated the speaker required 15 watts minimum power. That's only 1.8 dB more than 10 watts. 1.8 dB is NOT a tremendous difference, and could pass as less than a just noticeable difference under uncontrolled, informal, recreational listening. There are opinions, and there are physical facts. Physical facts trump opinions pretty much all the time, unless those opinions are well grounded in the facts. |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
speaker efficiency
On Oct 24, 6:50 pm, wrote:
Since I would assert with reasonable confidence that MOST of the time he's listening with the amplifier coasting along at less than a watt, that there is absolutely NO reason whatsoever NOT to try it. The original poster did say that his setup "can be played LOUD." This would tell me that the user LIKEs that capability. So wherever your "reasonable assertion of amplifier coasting" comes from, I don't know. 1 watt? Warming up, maybe. Forgive me for not calculating this scenario with the accuracy of a NASA space engineer. You made your point. The 10 watt amp will drive his speakers. My concern, which I thought may be his as well, was if it could drive his speakers hard. It won't. The system may sound nicer on the tubes, but he WILL miss the power. The Poster Walt brings up a good point in that tubes distort more pleasantly than solid state. That may help. CD |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
speaker efficiency
Dave wrote:
I need a third opinion here to break the deadlock. BTW, I found out that the efficiency is 88 db/w/m. So, a ten watt amp will be capable of driving the speakers to 98 db SPL at one meter. A 50 watt amp, which has 7db more output than the ten watter, will be capable of of driving the speakers to 105 db SPL at one meter. Now, you're unlikely to be listening at a distance of one meter, so you'd need to compensate for your actual listening distance. In an anechoic chamber, you'd drop the db SPL 6db for each doubling of distance. In a room with reflections it's more complicated, and without knowing more about your listing room I can't tell you much beyond this: For moderate listening levels in a small to medium sized room, no problem. For rock concert levels or in a big room, 10 watts ain't enough. Why not just wire the darn thing up and see what you think? //Walt |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
speaker efficiency
"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
... On Oct 24, 6:51 pm, "Dave" wrote: I need a third opinion here to break the deadlock. BTW, I found out that the efficiency is 88 db/w/m. Dave: Far be it from me to render a "third" opinion. Rather I would suggest that you check an independent source or two on the relationship between watts and decibels as it applies to your speakers. So, you will get 88dB at 1 watt at 1 meter from your BA speakers. 88dB is not LOUD, but it is substantially above conversational level, roughly 2x louder. 1 watt = 88dB 10 watts = 98dB 20 watts = 101dB 50 watts = 104/5 dB All other things being equal on those speakers. You will not miss the increment between 20 and 50 watts for two reasons one a bit esoteric, the other very practical: a) Tube amps clip softly. False claim. Tube amps plenty sharply if they have enough loop feedback to be usable for hi fi purposes. Some PR mileage has been made out of the fact that tubed amps often have relatively poorly-regulated power supplies, but once higher-voltage transistors became more available, lots of SS amps with relatively poorly-regulated power supplies have been built and sold. |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
speaker efficiency
On Oct 26, 5:27 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Peter Wieck" wrote in message ... On Oct 24, 6:51 pm, "Dave" wrote: I need a third opinion here to break the deadlock. BTW, I found out that the efficiency is 88 db/w/m. Dave: Far be it from me to render a "third" opinion. Rather I would suggest that you check an independent source or two on the relationship between watts and decibels as it applies to your speakers. So, you will get 88dB at 1 watt at 1 meter from your BA speakers. 88dB is not LOUD, but it is substantially above conversational level, roughly 2x louder. 1 watt = 88dB 10 watts = 98dB 20 watts = 101dB 50 watts = 104/5 dB All other things being equal on those speakers. You will not miss the increment between 20 and 50 watts for two reasons one a bit esoteric, the other very practical: a) Tube amps clip softly. False claim. Tube amps plenty sharply if they have enough loop feedback to be usable for hi fi purposes. Some PR mileage has been made out of the fact that tubed amps often have relatively poorly-regulated power supplies, but once higher-voltage transistors became more available, lots of SS amps with relatively poorly-regulated power supplies have been built and sold.- Hide quoted text - Arnie: Once again, as this is a regulated forum, I will refrain from a personalized response. Tube amps, at least those that use output tranformers do not pass DC to the speakers. Hence, they clip - SOFTLY - as compared to many/most vintage SS amps of the same/slightly greater output capacity. And, hence, they are less likely to damage speakers (or themselves) if driven to clipping, assuming reasonable build quality in either case. That would be the point. Headroom is a far more critical issue when discussing SS amps than it is with tube amps due to their very different natures. A 50-watt solid-state amp, therefore, is not substantially more powerful in any meaningful way than a 20-watt Tube amp. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
speaker efficiency
snip
So, you will get 88dB at 1 watt at 1 meter from your BA speakers. 88dB is not LOUD, but it is substantially above conversational level, roughly 2x louder. 1 watt = 88dB 10 watts = 98dB 20 watts = 101dB 50 watts = 104/5 dB All other things being equal on those speakers. My understanding (and I'm always willing to keep learning) is that two speakers (stereo) will provide 3db more volume than one if both are driven to the same level at the same time. So this reduces the power needed a bit. We must also take into account that the 1 watt = 88dB does not account for musical peaks, which may be up to 30 or more dB above the average level and will therefore require much more power. IMO this is one reason that very high power amps often sound better than low power ones of the same quality. Of course all calculations must include room size and absorbtion as well, so at best without real room data, it is all a guess. In the end, if it works, it works. Give it a try and see whether you like it. Greg |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
speaker efficiency
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 15:27:39 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Peter Wieck" wrote in message ... On Oct 24, 6:51 pm, "Dave" wrote: I need a third opinion here to break the deadlock. BTW, I found out that the efficiency is 88 db/w/m. Dave: Far be it from me to render a "third" opinion. Rather I would suggest that you check an independent source or two on the relationship between watts and decibels as it applies to your speakers. So, you will get 88dB at 1 watt at 1 meter from your BA speakers. 88dB is not LOUD, but it is substantially above conversational level, roughly 2x louder. 1 watt = 88dB 10 watts = 98dB 20 watts = 101dB 50 watts = 104/5 dB All other things being equal on those speakers. You will not miss the increment between 20 and 50 watts for two reasons one a bit esoteric, the other very practical: a) Tube amps clip softly. False claim. Tube amps plenty sharply if they have enough loop feedback to be usable for hi fi purposes. I was taught in engineering school that tubes produced mostly even-order harmonic distortion when they clipped and that the clipped waveform didn't look as much like a square wave as does a transistor which, when fully "on" acts like a switch and produces lots of odd-order distortion. Perhaps, since even-order harmonic distortion is easier on the ear and more consonant with music, that this is the source of the term "soft-clipping". Of course, driven hard into clipping, no amplifying device is listenable, no matter what type of distortion is being produced but momentary peaks are another matter. Some PR mileage has been made out of the fact that tubed amps often have relatively poorly-regulated power supplies, but once higher-voltage transistors became more available, lots of SS amps with relatively poorly-regulated power supplies have been built and sold. |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
speaker efficiency
|
#18
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
speaker efficiency
"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
... On Oct 26, 5:27 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: a) Tube amps clip softly. False claim. Tube amps plenty sharply if they have enough loop feedback to be usable for hi fi purposes. Some PR mileage has been made out of the fact that tubed amps often have relatively poorly-regulated power supplies, but once higher-voltage transistors became more available, lots of SS amps with relatively poorly-regulated power supplies have been built and sold.- Hide quoted text - Tube amps, at least those that use output tranformers do not pass DC to the speakers. Neither do typical solid state amps. They are not DC-coupled. There at least one LF pole. So here we have yet another straw man argument. Hence, they clip - SOFTLY - as compared to many/most vintage SS amps of the same/slightly greater output capacity. DC coupling has nothing to do with soft clipping. That makes yet another straw man argument. And, hence, they are less likely to damage speakers (or themselves) if driven to clipping, assuming reasonable build quality in either case. The issue was soft clipping, not probability of damage. That makes three straw man arguments in just this one post. Or, is it a red herring? BTW, in the days of tubes we managed to destroy speakers quite nicely with tubed amps. Most speakers are destroyed by the application of excess power, and it matters not where that excess power comes from tube amp or SS amp, because regardless of source it is all turned into heat by the resistance of the voice coil & etc. That would be the point. Headroom is a far more critical issue when discussing SS amps than it is with tube amps due to their very different natures. A 50-watt solid-state amp, therefore, is not substantially more powerful in any meaningful way than a 20-watt Tube amp. This would appear to be a baseless assertion, given that the assertions that preceeded it are easy to disregard on the grounds that they are straw man arguments. |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
speaker efficiency
On Oct 27, 10:47 am, Sonnova wrote:
I was taught in engineering school that tubes produced mostly even-order harmonic distortion when they clipped and that the clipped waveform didn't look as much like a square wave as does a transistor which, when fully "on" acts like a switch and produces lots of odd-order distortion. False. The issue of whether a circuit produces even-order or odd-order distortion has far less to do with whether it's implemented with tubes or solid state than it has to do whether the non-linearities are symmetrical or non-symmetrical. Take the case of a push-pull tube amplifier vs a push- pull solid state amplifier: at clipping (assuming the clipping is symmetrical about 0), BOTH implementations produce essentially odd-order only, simply because the symmetry is odd-order. Take two single-ended amplifiers, or two with clip unsymmetrically, one solid sate, the other tubed, and they BOTH produce even-order distortion. Single-ended low-global feedback tube amplifiers DO produce a LOT of even order distortion, but so do single- ended, low feedback solid state amplifiers as yet another example. |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
speaker efficiency
On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 07:51:03 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Peter Wieck" wrote in message ... On Oct 26, 5:27 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: a) Tube amps clip softly. False claim. Tube amps plenty sharply if they have enough loop feedback to be usable for hi fi purposes. Some PR mileage has been made out of the fact that tubed amps often have relatively poorly-regulated power supplies, but once higher-voltage transistors became more available, lots of SS amps with relatively poorly-regulated power supplies have been built and sold.- Hide quoted text - Tube amps, at least those that use output tranformers do not pass DC to the speakers. Neither do typical solid state amps. They are not DC-coupled. There at least one LF pole. So here we have yet another straw man argument. Hence, they clip - SOFTLY - as compared to many/most vintage SS amps of the same/slightly greater output capacity. DC coupling has nothing to do with soft clipping. That makes yet another straw man argument. And, hence, they are less likely to damage speakers (or themselves) if driven to clipping, assuming reasonable build quality in either case. The issue was soft clipping, not probability of damage. That makes three straw man arguments in just this one post. Or, is it a red herring? BTW, in the days of tubes we managed to destroy speakers quite nicely with tubed amps. Most speakers are destroyed by the application of excess power, and it matters not where that excess power comes from tube amp or SS amp, because regardless of source it is all turned into heat by the resistance of the voice coil & etc. Actually, I think you'll find that just as many speaker systems are damaged by too little power as by too much. Here's the scenario: Small amp is driven into constant clipping by listener's desire for louder rock-n-roll. Clipped high frequencies exceed the duty cycle of the tweeter's voice coil. Coil heats-up, burns out. |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
speaker efficiency
"Sonnova" wrote in message
... I was taught in engineering school that tubes produced mostly even-order harmonic distortion No even order distortion if those tubes are in a push-pull configuration, which has been the standard for power amps since about 1933. when they clipped and that the clipped waveform didn't look as much like a square wave Tubes cut off and saturate just like transistors. The edges of a clipped signal are sharpened by inverse feedback, which has been the standard since about 1938. as does a transistor which, when fully "on" acts like a switch Tubes also act like switches. Just drive them hard enough. and produces lots of odd-order distortion. Odd order distortion is a natural consequence of clipping of both the negative and positve halves of the signal. Perhaps, since even-order harmonic distortion is easier on the ear and more consonant with music, that this is the source of the term "soft-clipping". Repeat: push-pull amplifiers can't produce even order distortion whether they are tubed or SS, because of the rule of half wave symmetry, Of course, driven hard into clipping, no amplifying device is listenable, no matter what type of distortion is being produced but momentary peaks are another matter. Actually, if those momentary peaks are really short, they pretty well escape the ear's notice if we're amplifying music. Please name the engineering school that taught you all of these strange things. |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
speaker efficiency
wrote in message
... Single-ended low-global feedback tube amplifiers DO produce a LOT of even order distortion, but so do single- ended, low feedback solid state amplifiers as yet another example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tube_sound#Soft_clipping "However the monotonically reducing purely harmonic distortion spectrum of the simple SE gain stage is not of itself anything to do with using a tube, and a similar distortion spectrum and sound can be obtained using the same circuit topology with , for example, a MOSFET." " However, soft clipping is not exclusive to tubes" Case in point being Nelson Pass' Zen series of SS power amplifiers. |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
speaker efficiency
On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 20:08:26 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... I was taught in engineering school that tubes produced mostly even-order harmonic distortion No even order distortion if those tubes are in a push-pull configuration, which has been the standard for power amps since about 1933. when they clipped and that the clipped waveform didn't look as much like a square wave Tubes cut off and saturate just like transistors. The edges of a clipped signal are sharpened by inverse feedback, which has been the standard since about 1938. as does a transistor which, when fully "on" acts like a switch Tubes also act like switches. Just drive them hard enough. and produces lots of odd-order distortion. Odd order distortion is a natural consequence of clipping of both the negative and positve halves of the signal. Perhaps, since even-order harmonic distortion is easier on the ear and more consonant with music, that this is the source of the term "soft-clipping". Repeat: push-pull amplifiers can't produce even order distortion whether they are tubed or SS, because of the rule of half wave symmetry, Of course, driven hard into clipping, no amplifying device is listenable, no matter what type of distortion is being produced but momentary peaks are another matter. Actually, if those momentary peaks are really short, they pretty well escape the ear's notice if we're amplifying music. Please name the engineering school that taught you all of these strange things. San Jose State University. |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
speaker efficiency
"Sonnova" wrote in message
... On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 07:51:03 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): BTW, in the days of tubes we managed to destroy speakers quite nicely with tubed amps. Most speakers are destroyed by the application of excess power, and it matters not where that excess power comes from tube amp or SS amp, because regardless of source it is all turned into heat by the resistance of the voice coil & etc. Actually, I think you'll find that just as many speaker systems are damaged by too little power as by too much. Here's the scenario: Small amp is driven into constant clipping by listener's desire for louder rock-n-roll. Clipped high frequencies exceed the duty cycle of the tweeter's voice coil. Coil heats-up, burns out. The fallacy here is the idea that clipped musical signals always have more high frequencies than unclipped musical signals. Clipping does not necessarily increase the high frequency content of musical signals. In fact, in some cases, clipping decreases the high frequency content of musical signals. That's one reason why clipping tends to make music sound muddy. |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
speaker efficiency
On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 20:07:40 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 07:51:03 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): BTW, in the days of tubes we managed to destroy speakers quite nicely with tubed amps. Most speakers are destroyed by the application of excess power, and it matters not where that excess power comes from tube amp or SS amp, because regardless of source it is all turned into heat by the resistance of the voice coil & etc. Actually, I think you'll find that just as many speaker systems are damaged by too little power as by too much. Here's the scenario: Small amp is driven into constant clipping by listener's desire for louder rock-n-roll. Clipped high frequencies exceed the duty cycle of the tweeter's voice coil. Coil heats-up, burns out. The fallacy here is the idea that clipped musical signals always have more high frequencies than unclipped musical signals. Clipping does not necessarily increase the high frequency content of musical signals. In fact, in some cases, clipping decreases the high frequency content of musical signals. That's one reason why clipping tends to make music sound muddy. Seen too many burned-out tweeters associated with too-small amps to buy that. Sorry. |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
speaker efficiency
"Arny Krueger" writes:
[...] The fallacy here is the idea that clipped musical signals always have more high frequencies than unclipped musical signals. Clipping does not necessarily increase the high frequency content of musical signals. Tell me where the following thought experiment (which I believe should model reality) falls apart then: 1) A signal is composed of a set of sinusoids. 2) Clipping any one sinuoid will produce other sinusoids that are at integer multiples of the original (i.e., that are "high frequency") 3) These other sinusoids will be "extra" if they did not exist before. It is possible that the new sinusoids will add destructively with existing sinusoids, but I claim such occurrences are "pathological cases." -- % Randy Yates % "Midnight, on the water... %% Fuquay-Varina, NC % I saw... the ocean's daughter." %%% 919-577-9882 % 'Can't Get It Out Of My Head' %%%% % *El Dorado*, Electric Light Orchestra http://www.digitalsignallabs.com |
#27
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
speaker efficiency
"Sonnova" wrote in message
... On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 20:07:40 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 07:51:03 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): BTW, in the days of tubes we managed to destroy speakers quite nicely with tubed amps. Most speakers are destroyed by the application of excess power, and it matters not where that excess power comes from tube amp or SS amp, because regardless of source it is all turned into heat by the resistance of the voice coil & etc. Actually, I think you'll find that just as many speaker systems are damaged by too little power as by too much. Here's the scenario: Small amp is driven into constant clipping by listener's desire for louder rock-n-roll. Clipped high frequencies exceed the duty cycle of the tweeter's voice coil. Coil heats-up, burns out. The fallacy here is the idea that clipped musical signals always have more high frequencies than unclipped musical signals. Clipping does not necessarily increase the high frequency content of musical signals. In fact, in some cases, clipping decreases the high frequency content of musical signals. That's one reason why clipping tends to make music sound muddy. Seen too many burned-out tweeters associated with too-small amps to buy that. How does a tweeter show that it was burned out by too small of an amplifier? |
#28
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
speaker efficiency
"Randy Yates" wrote in message
... "Arny Krueger" writes: [...] The fallacy here is the idea that clipped musical signals always have more high frequencies than unclipped musical signals. Clipping does not necessarily increase the high frequency content of musical signals. Tell me where the following thought experiment (which I believe should model reality) falls apart then: 1) A signal is composed of a set of sinusoids. 2) Clipping any one sinuoid will produce other sinusoids that are at integer multiples of the original (i.e., that are "high frequency") 3) These other sinusoids will be "extra" if they did not exist before. Your thought experiment is true as far as it goes, but it ignores a major effect of clipping on signals related to music. One important aspect of signal analysis is to actually observe real world signals. Since I do a lot of digital editing of music, I look at music waveforms for hours and hours. Every once in a while I get levels wrong while doing live recording, and then I get to look at clipped music. I make frequent use of spectral analysis while I'm editing, particularly if I'm editing noisy recordings, or using equalization. The spectral content of music very often decreases with frequency. Some very harsh rock music actually has uniform energy per octave or frequency, but most music has an energy distribution that resembles pink or red noise. Clipping is most often stimulated by the low frequency components of the signal because the low frequency components of music tend to have the highest amplitude of any of its component signals. When you clip a signal you create segments where the signal is a essentually a DC pulse whose duration is related to the frequency of the signal that stimulated the clipping. This replaces the high frequency components of the music with a straight line. They are effectively erased. IOW, any treble notes that would normally ride on top of a bass note are replaced with straight lines when the bass note is clipped. The treble notes are eliminated by the clipping. High frequency energy is reduced. Higher frequency components that once existed in the clipped signal segment are effectively erased by the clipping. Square waves have a spectral content that is similar to red noise. If the unclipped music had a spectral content that was similar to white or pink noise, then its high frequency content will have been reduced. If the unclipped music had a spectral content that was similar to red noise, then its high frequency content is essentially unchanged. Rarely does clipping ever actually increase the high frequency content of the music. |
#29
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
speaker efficiency
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 17:22:04 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 20:07:40 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 07:51:03 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): BTW, in the days of tubes we managed to destroy speakers quite nicely with tubed amps. Most speakers are destroyed by the application of excess power, and it matters not where that excess power comes from tube amp or SS amp, because regardless of source it is all turned into heat by the resistance of the voice coil & etc. Actually, I think you'll find that just as many speaker systems are damaged by too little power as by too much. Here's the scenario: Small amp is driven into constant clipping by listener's desire for louder rock-n-roll. Clipped high frequencies exceed the duty cycle of the tweeter's voice coil. Coil heats-up, burns out. The fallacy here is the idea that clipped musical signals always have more high frequencies than unclipped musical signals. Clipping does not necessarily increase the high frequency content of musical signals. In fact, in some cases, clipping decreases the high frequency content of musical signals. That's one reason why clipping tends to make music sound muddy. Seen too many burned-out tweeters associated with too-small amps to buy that. How does a tweeter show that it was burned out by too small of an amplifier? Simple. Hook a bookshelf speaker system rated at "200 watts" to a 25 Watt/channel Wiliamson amplifier and notice that it keeps blowing tweeters (and is not oscillating). |
#30
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
speaker efficiency
Randy Yates writes:
"Arny Krueger" writes: [...] The fallacy here is the idea that clipped musical signals always have more high frequencies than unclipped musical signals. Clipping does not necessarily increase the high frequency content of musical signals. Tell me where the following thought experiment (which I believe should model reality) falls apart then: 1) A signal is composed of a set of sinusoids. 2) Clipping any one sinuoid will produce other sinusoids that are at integer multiples of the original (i.e., that are "high frequency") 3) These other sinusoids will be "extra" if they did not exist before. Yes, but experiment shows that even when an amplifier is grossly overdriven, although the clipping is producing extra harmonics they never approach the levels of the amplified high frequency source signal. There's a famous experiment at RaneNote 128: http://www.audiovisualdevices.com.au...ne/note128.pdf Andrew. |
#31
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
speaker efficiency
"Arny Krueger" writes:
[...] Thanks Arny. I think the problem with my gedanken is that I assume the system is linear. An amplifier driven into clipping is not a linear system! That is essentially why, e.g., if you have a small high frequency sine wave riding on a low frequency sine wave and you clip the low-frequency sine wave, you lose the high frequency sine wave, which was higher in amplitude than the clipped waveforms harmonics. -- % Randy Yates % "With time with what you've learned, %% Fuquay-Varina, NC % they'll kiss the ground you walk %%% 919-577-9882 % upon." %%%% % '21st Century Man', *Time*, ELO http://www.digitalsignallabs.com |
#32
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
speaker efficiency
"Sonnova" wrote in message
... On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 17:22:04 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 20:07:40 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 07:51:03 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): BTW, in the days of tubes we managed to destroy speakers quite nicely with tubed amps. Most speakers are destroyed by the application of excess power, and it matters not where that excess power comes from tube amp or SS amp, because regardless of source it is all turned into heat by the resistance of the voice coil & etc. Actually, I think you'll find that just as many speaker systems are damaged by too little power as by too much. Here's the scenario: Small amp is driven into constant clipping by listener's desire for louder rock-n-roll. Clipped high frequencies exceed the duty cycle of the tweeter's voice coil. Coil heats-up, burns out. The fallacy here is the idea that clipped musical signals always have more high frequencies than unclipped musical signals. Clipping does not necessarily increase the high frequency content of musical signals. In fact, in some cases, clipping decreases the high frequency content of musical signals. That's one reason why clipping tends to make music sound muddy. Seen too many burned-out tweeters associated with too-small amps to buy that. How does a tweeter show that it was burned out by too small of an amplifier? Simple. Hook a bookshelf speaker system rated at "200 watts" to a 25 Watt/channel Wiliamson amplifier and notice that it keeps blowing tweeters (and is not oscillating). The bookshelf tweeter probably has a real-world (not spec sheet) power capacity of under 10 watts. |
#33
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
speaker efficiency
"Andrew Haley" wrote in message
... Randy Yates writes: "Arny Krueger" writes: [...] The fallacy here is the idea that clipped musical signals always have more high frequencies than unclipped musical signals. Clipping does not necessarily increase the high frequency content of musical signals. Tell me where the following thought experiment (which I believe should model reality) falls apart then: 1) A signal is composed of a set of sinusoids. 2) Clipping any one sinuoid will produce other sinusoids that are at integer multiples of the original (i.e., that are "high frequency") 3) These other sinusoids will be "extra" if they did not exist before. Yes, but experiment shows that even when an amplifier is grossly overdriven, although the clipping is producing extra harmonics they never approach the levels of the amplified high frequency source signal. There's a famous experiment at RaneNote 128: http://www.audiovisualdevices.com.au...ne/note128.pdf You're no doubt thinking of figures 3 and 4. This shows the effect that I described in my reply to Yates's thought experiment - where clipping actually removes high frequency energy from the musical signal. I've replicated this process with numerous examples of real world music and obtained similar results. It's a pretty easy experiment to do with 16 bit files in Audition/CEP . You just do a spectrum analysis of some music, over-amplify it to clip it, (20 dB of gain will usually suffice) and then repeat the spectrum analysis. Audition has a nifty curve hold feature that facilitates the comparison. The amplification will increase the overall height of the second curve, but on the average it will be roughly parallel to the held curve for the unclipped signal. Or, you can start out with a mono signal, clone it into 2 channels, and clip just one of the channels. Often, there is no significant change in the energy distribution of the music at all when it is clipped. OTOH, there will probably be a general increase in broadband energy levels in the clipped music, because clipping also provides a sort of dynamics compression effect. Clipped signals tend to optimize the broadband average power levels that a given amplifier can deliver. If you want to get the most power out of an amp that it will deliver, clip the music pretty heavily. So what it comes down to is that by clipping music, its average broadband power is usually increased, while the proportion of energy at high frequencies will remain about the same or may even decrease. If there is a decrease in energy in the upper midrange where the ear is most sensitive, subjective loudness for a given power level might even decrease. Of course, when you increase power at all frequencies, you also increase power at high frequencies. It's the increased average power at all frequencies that burns out drivers, not some highly technical shifting of energy from low frequencies to high frequencies. That's the point of Rane note 128, which has AFAIK never been technically rebutted over the approximately 15 years that it has been published. |
#34
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
speaker efficiency
On Nov 1, 6:08 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
The bookshelf tweeter probably has a real-world (not spec sheet) power capacity of under 10 watts Which means exactly nothing in that same "real world". Send 10 watts of power as a sine-wave to any speaker for any sustained period of time and I suspect that you would be able to blow your driver-of- choice in a very few minutes, if even that. With VDF (very ****** few) exceptions. However and at the same time, take the average stock-but-working first- run Dynaco ST-120 driven to clipping 60% of the time and it will be a close-run thing whether the speakers or the amp fails first. At that point, sure the tweeter is likely cheaper than the woofer but does it really matter which driver it is? Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
#35
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
speaker efficiency
On Thu, 1 Nov 2007 16:08:10 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 17:22:04 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 20:07:40 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 07:51:03 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): BTW, in the days of tubes we managed to destroy speakers quite nicely with tubed amps. Most speakers are destroyed by the application of excess power, and it matters not where that excess power comes from tube amp or SS amp, because regardless of source it is all turned into heat by the resistance of the voice coil & etc. Actually, I think you'll find that just as many speaker systems are damaged by too little power as by too much. Here's the scenario: Small amp is driven into constant clipping by listener's desire for louder rock-n-roll. Clipped high frequencies exceed the duty cycle of the tweeter's voice coil. Coil heats-up, burns out. The fallacy here is the idea that clipped musical signals always have more high frequencies than unclipped musical signals. Clipping does not necessarily increase the high frequency content of musical signals. In fact, in some cases, clipping decreases the high frequency content of musical signals. That's one reason why clipping tends to make music sound muddy. Seen too many burned-out tweeters associated with too-small amps to buy that. How does a tweeter show that it was burned out by too small of an amplifier? Simple. Hook a bookshelf speaker system rated at "200 watts" to a 25 Watt/channel Wiliamson amplifier and notice that it keeps blowing tweeters (and is not oscillating). The bookshelf tweeter probably has a real-world (not spec sheet) power capacity of under 10 watts. Most tweeters are like that, that's (one reason) why they have at least a capacitor in series with them and sometimes a fuse. The fuse doesn't usually blow in these cases because the cooked tweeter is not due to excess current, but rather because it's voice-coil duty cycle has been continuously exceeded by a clipping amplifier. |
#36
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
speaker efficiency
On Thu, 1 Nov 2007 16:22:21 -0700, Peter Wieck wrote
(in article ): On Nov 1, 6:08 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: The bookshelf tweeter probably has a real-world (not spec sheet) power capacity of under 10 watts Which means exactly nothing in that same "real world". Send 10 watts of power as a sine-wave to any speaker for any sustained period of time and I suspect that you would be able to blow your driver-of- choice in a very few minutes, if even that. With VDF (very ****** few) exceptions. However and at the same time, take the average stock-but-working first- run Dynaco ST-120 driven to clipping 60% of the time and it will be a close-run thing whether the speakers or the amp fails first. At that point, sure the tweeter is likely cheaper than the woofer but does it really matter which driver it is? Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA I had an early ST-120. What a terrible device! Dynaco eventually fixed it, but it was, originally, one of the most fragile and hard sounding amplifiers I've ever seen (I must have had to replace the output and driver transistors at least 5 times in as many years). With it's matching preamp, the PAT-5, its hard to tell which was worse the amp or the preamp. Dynaco called it the "transistor sound", I called it distortion. I replaced those horrid components with an Audio Research SP-3 and pair of D-40's and never looked back! I still prefer tubes to this day and see no reason to change (my subs have SS amps in them though). My current main amps, a pair of VTL 140 monoblocs, though 15 years old, are so good, that I'll probably keep 'em forever. I have purchased, from an old ham operator, a "lifetime supply" of WWII vintage NOS JAN 807s (with the brown bakelite tube bases). 807s are used by these amps (6 each) as output tubes and I have found that the JAN 807s sound better (and are certainly better made) than the Chinese versions that VTL sells as replacements - and which came in the amps when new. They drive a pair of Martin-Logan Vantage loudspeakers with built-in powered subwoofers. Glorious sound! |
#37
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
speaker efficiency
To get right to the point, unless you have a large room, 10-20 wpc of tube
amplification is sufficient to drive your T-830s (88dB @ 2.83V/1m) to loud volumes. There is a review (see review #4) that specifically talks about your speakers with a 20 wpc integrated NAD solid-state amp... http://www.audioreview.com/cat/ampli...7_1593crx.aspx On top of that, if you prefer the smooth sound of tubes, you will like that set-up better even if it may not get quite as loud as your H/K solid-state. The only downfall I could see with switching to this amp with less power could be deep bass power since it uses most of the power to reproduce especially at higher volumes. Happy listening! "Dave" wrote in message ... A acquaintance of mine is wanting to upgrade his amplifier, an EL34-based tube amp wired in ultralinear configuration. I'm considering buying it, but am unsure if this amp's 20 wpc is enough to drive my Boston Acoustics T-830 speakers. Right now they're driven with a 50 wpc Harmon Kardon vintage solid state amp, and that setup can be played LOUD. If I purchased the tube amplifier, I'd likely want to rewire it in triode configuration which would halve my power output to around 10 wpc. Does anyone know the efficiency specs for the T-830 speakers, or any of the T-series BA loudspeakers from the early 90's? I have the original cartons but none of the literature that came with the speakers. Thanks Dave S. |
#38
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
speaker efficiency
"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
... On Nov 1, 6:08 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: The bookshelf tweeter probably has a real-world (not spec sheet) power capacity of under 10 watts Which means exactly nothing in that same "real world". Send 10 watts of power as a sine-wave to any speaker for any sustained period of time and I suspect that you would be able to blow your driver-of- choice in a very few minutes, if even that. With VDF (very ****** few) exceptions. A lot of modern tweeters are actually very robust. Robust = fewer warranty claims. Innovations like Ferrofluid, high-temperature insulation and glues have made a big difference. Adhesives and varnishes may have improved the most - epoxies that retain their strength at 600 degrees or more are now just a matter of ordering up the right stuff. Old-time varnishes and glues started loosing strength on a hot sunny day! If *any speaker* includes modern high-performance compression tweeter drivers, then continuous power handling in the 40 to 100 watt range is possible. Of course, you get to pay for performance like that! ;-) If *any speaker* includes midranges and woofers, then the sky is literally the limit. Some modern woofers will sit and stroke with 100s of watts at 20-30 Hz or higher, all day long. However and at the same time, take the average stock-but-working first- run Dynaco ST-120 driven to clipping 60% of the time and it will be a close-run thing whether the speakers or the amp fails first. My Dyna ST-120 has proven to be more robust than that. While everything including output transistors appars to be original, I don't know where it sat in the ST-120 production run. I suspect that it is a factory build. During the life of the ST-120 as a product, SS technology made large advances in power transistor speed, linearity, costs and robustness. |
#39
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
speaker efficiency
On Fri, 2 Nov 2007 15:34:13 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Peter Wieck" wrote in message ... On Nov 1, 6:08 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: The bookshelf tweeter probably has a real-world (not spec sheet) power capacity of under 10 watts Which means exactly nothing in that same "real world". Send 10 watts of power as a sine-wave to any speaker for any sustained period of time and I suspect that you would be able to blow your driver-of- choice in a very few minutes, if even that. With VDF (very ****** few) exceptions. A lot of modern tweeters are actually very robust. Robust = fewer warranty claims. Innovations like Ferrofluid, high-temperature insulation and glues have made a big difference. Adhesives and varnishes may have improved the most - epoxies that retain their strength at 600 degrees or more are now just a matter of ordering up the right stuff. Old-time varnishes and glues started loosing strength on a hot sunny day! If *any speaker* includes modern high-performance compression tweeter drivers, then continuous power handling in the 40 to 100 watt range is possible. Of course, you get to pay for performance like that! ;-) If *any speaker* includes midranges and woofers, then the sky is literally the limit. Some modern woofers will sit and stroke with 100s of watts at 20-30 Hz or higher, all day long. However and at the same time, take the average stock-but-working first- run Dynaco ST-120 driven to clipping 60% of the time and it will be a close-run thing whether the speakers or the amp fails first. My Dyna ST-120 has proven to be more robust than that. While everything including output transistors appars to be original, I don't know where it sat in the ST-120 production run. I suspect that it is a factory build. During the life of the ST-120 as a product, SS technology made large advances in power transistor speed, linearity, costs and robustness. I know that in the early seventies, Dynaco changed the ST-120 considerably. They replaced the output transistors and the drivers with devices that were more robust (the originals were working at their ragged edge, so much so that they had to be hand-selected for the task by Dyna and had special part numbers. If a repair tech bought off-the-shelf transistors of the proper type, they generally blew fairly soon after the amp was put back in service. Also, if one driver or output transistor went on the ST-120, it took the other three of those four transistors with it - almost every time! I also know that the later ST-120s were biased harder into class AB than the earlier amps had been. They had to do something. As I said, my Gen 1 ST-120/PAT-5 sounded simply dreadful! |
#40
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
speaker efficiency
"Sonnova" wrote in message
... On Thu, 1 Nov 2007 16:08:10 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... Simple. Hook a bookshelf speaker system rated at "200 watts" to a 25 Watt/channel Wiliamson amplifier and notice that it keeps blowing tweeters (and is not oscillating). The bookshelf tweeter probably has a real-world (not spec sheet) power capacity of under 10 watts. Most tweeters are like that, Not these days, not in quality speakers. Please see my other recent post on the matter. that's (one reason) why they have at least a capacitor in series with them The capacitor is a part of a filter that routes lows to the woofer and highs to the tweeters in the interest of smooth response. and sometimes a fuse. Or other part like a light bulb that protects the tweeter from abuse. The fuse doesn't usually blow in these cases because the cooked tweeter is not due to excess current, but rather because it's voice-coil duty cycle has been continuously exceeded by a clipping amplifier. Excess current and exceeding the duty cycle are two ways of describing the identical same process. |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
300b DHT mains noise & speaker efficiency | Vacuum Tubes | |||
Fullrange, High Efficiency Single Driver Speaker Systems | Vacuum Tubes | |||
High Efficiency Speakers from $168/pr | Vacuum Tubes | |||
Efficiency Info on vintage Fisher xp60b speaker for tube amp? | Vacuum Tubes | |||
Speaker efficiency/power and other myths | Car Audio |