In Peter Larsen
wrote:

Is there any super-tweeter which goes beyond 40 KHz and SPL beyond
96
dB?

Probably not if you ask for both properties at the same time. As Ole
Lund Christensen once said: bandwidth times efficiency tends to be a
constant. Ya can't win in unlimited tractorpulling with something
that
weighs 500 kg.

Probably having many dynamic super-tweeters would do the job. If their
are 140 speakers each playing at 1 dB, you get around 140 dB if they
are facing the same direction. Right? Wrong?

Parallel speaker: loudness determined by numbers of speakers producing
the sound

Serial speaker: loudness determined by intensity of signal reaching
the speaker

In article ,
(Curious) wrote:
|
|Probably having many dynamic super-tweeters would do the job. If their
|are 140 speakers each playing at 1 dB, you get around 140 dB if they
|are facing the same direction. Right? Wrong?

Wrong.
1 tweeter = 1 dB.
2 tweeters = 4 dB.
4 tweeters = 7 dB.
8 tweeters = 10 dB.
16 tweeters = 13 dB.
32 tweeters = 16 dB.
64 tweeters = 19 dB.
128 tweeters = 22 dB.
Close enough to 140 tweeters for you?

The 3dB increase each time is debatable, it depends on whether you get phase
coherence or not, but it's close enough for this example.

--
Don Hills (dmhills at attglobaldotnet) Wellington, New Zealand

In article ,
(Curious) wrote:
|
|Probably having many dynamic super-tweeters would do the job. If their
|are 140 speakers each playing at 1 dB, you get around 140 dB if they
|are facing the same direction. Right? Wrong?

Wrong.
1 tweeter = 1 dB.
2 tweeters = 4 dB.
4 tweeters = 7 dB.
8 tweeters = 10 dB.
16 tweeters = 13 dB.
32 tweeters = 16 dB.
64 tweeters = 19 dB.
128 tweeters = 22 dB.
Close enough to 140 tweeters for you?

The 3dB increase each time is debatable, it depends on whether you get phase
coherence or not, but it's close enough for this example.

--
Don Hills (dmhills at attglobaldotnet) Wellington, New Zealand

In article ,
(Curious) wrote:
|
|Probably having many dynamic super-tweeters would do the job. If their
|are 140 speakers each playing at 1 dB, you get around 140 dB if they
|are facing the same direction. Right? Wrong?

Wrong.
1 tweeter = 1 dB.
2 tweeters = 4 dB.
4 tweeters = 7 dB.
8 tweeters = 10 dB.
16 tweeters = 13 dB.
32 tweeters = 16 dB.
64 tweeters = 19 dB.
128 tweeters = 22 dB.
Close enough to 140 tweeters for you?

The 3dB increase each time is debatable, it depends on whether you get phase
coherence or not, but it's close enough for this example.

--
Don Hills (dmhills at attglobaldotnet) Wellington, New Zealand

In article ,
(Curious) wrote:
|
|Probably having many dynamic super-tweeters would do the job. If their
|are 140 speakers each playing at 1 dB, you get around 140 dB if they
|are facing the same direction. Right? Wrong?

Wrong.
1 tweeter = 1 dB.
2 tweeters = 4 dB.
4 tweeters = 7 dB.
8 tweeters = 10 dB.
16 tweeters = 13 dB.
32 tweeters = 16 dB.
64 tweeters = 19 dB.
128 tweeters = 22 dB.
Close enough to 140 tweeters for you?

The 3dB increase each time is debatable, it depends on whether you get phase
coherence or not, but it's close enough for this example.

--
Don Hills (dmhills at attglobaldotnet) Wellington, New Zealand

"Don Hills" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Curious) wrote:
|
|Probably having many dynamic super-tweeters would do the job. If their
|are 140 speakers each playing at 1 dB, you get around 140 dB if they
|are facing the same direction. Right? Wrong?

Wrong.
1 tweeter = 1 dB.
2 tweeters = 4 dB.
4 tweeters = 7 dB.
8 tweeters = 10 dB.
16 tweeters = 13 dB.
32 tweeters = 16 dB.
64 tweeters = 19 dB.
128 tweeters = 22 dB.
Close enough to 140 tweeters for you?

The 3dB increase each time is debatable, it depends on whether you get
phase
coherence or not, but it's close enough for this example.

I think it's safe to assume 128 real tweeters will not produce phase
coherence due to the physical distances involved.

TonyP.

"Don Hills" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Curious) wrote:
|
|Probably having many dynamic super-tweeters would do the job. If their
|are 140 speakers each playing at 1 dB, you get around 140 dB if they
|are facing the same direction. Right? Wrong?

Wrong.
1 tweeter = 1 dB.
2 tweeters = 4 dB.
4 tweeters = 7 dB.
8 tweeters = 10 dB.
16 tweeters = 13 dB.
32 tweeters = 16 dB.
64 tweeters = 19 dB.
128 tweeters = 22 dB.
Close enough to 140 tweeters for you?

The 3dB increase each time is debatable, it depends on whether you get
phase
coherence or not, but it's close enough for this example.

I think it's safe to assume 128 real tweeters will not produce phase
coherence due to the physical distances involved.

TonyP.

"Don Hills" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Curious) wrote:
|
|Probably having many dynamic super-tweeters would do the job. If their
|are 140 speakers each playing at 1 dB, you get around 140 dB if they
|are facing the same direction. Right? Wrong?

Wrong.
1 tweeter = 1 dB.
2 tweeters = 4 dB.
4 tweeters = 7 dB.
8 tweeters = 10 dB.
16 tweeters = 13 dB.
32 tweeters = 16 dB.
64 tweeters = 19 dB.
128 tweeters = 22 dB.
Close enough to 140 tweeters for you?

The 3dB increase each time is debatable, it depends on whether you get
phase
coherence or not, but it's close enough for this example.

I think it's safe to assume 128 real tweeters will not produce phase
coherence due to the physical distances involved.

TonyP.

"Don Hills" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Curious) wrote:
|
|Probably having many dynamic super-tweeters would do the job. If their
|are 140 speakers each playing at 1 dB, you get around 140 dB if they
|are facing the same direction. Right? Wrong?

Wrong.
1 tweeter = 1 dB.
2 tweeters = 4 dB.
4 tweeters = 7 dB.
8 tweeters = 10 dB.
16 tweeters = 13 dB.
32 tweeters = 16 dB.
64 tweeters = 19 dB.
128 tweeters = 22 dB.
Close enough to 140 tweeters for you?

The 3dB increase each time is debatable, it depends on whether you get
phase
coherence or not, but it's close enough for this example.

I think it's safe to assume 128 real tweeters will not produce phase
coherence due to the physical distances involved.

TonyP.

In article ,
"TonyP" wrote:

I think it's safe to assume 128 real tweeters will not produce phase
coherence due to the physical distances involved.

That's putting it mildly. grin

I have seen an SPL car which used many (over a hundred, I think) midrange
units driven at a KHz or so. It didn't produce any significant SPL. As you
point out, you don't get the phase coherence that you can get at low
frequencies, plus you don't get "cabin gain" (resonance). Proper postioning
of subs can make a huge difference in measured SPL. The aim (pardon the pun)
is to get a "standing wave maxima" to occur at the microphone position. I
recall seeing some experimentation done with a single 10" sub in a small
hatchback car. The best position turned out to be with the enclosure sitting
about head height facing into one corner of the rear window. 6 inches either
way dropped the measured SPL by about 10 dB.

--
Don Hills (dmhills at attglobaldotnet) Wellington, New Zealand
"I don't use Linux. I prefer to use an OS supported by a large multi-
national vendor, with a good office suite, excellent network/internet
software and decent hardware support."

In article ,
"TonyP" wrote:

I think it's safe to assume 128 real tweeters will not produce phase
coherence due to the physical distances involved.

That's putting it mildly. grin

I have seen an SPL car which used many (over a hundred, I think) midrange
units driven at a KHz or so. It didn't produce any significant SPL. As you
point out, you don't get the phase coherence that you can get at low
frequencies, plus you don't get "cabin gain" (resonance). Proper postioning
of subs can make a huge difference in measured SPL. The aim (pardon the pun)
is to get a "standing wave maxima" to occur at the microphone position. I
recall seeing some experimentation done with a single 10" sub in a small
hatchback car. The best position turned out to be with the enclosure sitting
about head height facing into one corner of the rear window. 6 inches either
way dropped the measured SPL by about 10 dB.

--
Don Hills (dmhills at attglobaldotnet) Wellington, New Zealand
"I don't use Linux. I prefer to use an OS supported by a large multi-
national vendor, with a good office suite, excellent network/internet
software and decent hardware support."

In article ,
"TonyP" wrote:

I think it's safe to assume 128 real tweeters will not produce phase
coherence due to the physical distances involved.

That's putting it mildly. grin

I have seen an SPL car which used many (over a hundred, I think) midrange
units driven at a KHz or so. It didn't produce any significant SPL. As you
point out, you don't get the phase coherence that you can get at low
frequencies, plus you don't get "cabin gain" (resonance). Proper postioning
of subs can make a huge difference in measured SPL. The aim (pardon the pun)
is to get a "standing wave maxima" to occur at the microphone position. I
recall seeing some experimentation done with a single 10" sub in a small
hatchback car. The best position turned out to be with the enclosure sitting
about head height facing into one corner of the rear window. 6 inches either
way dropped the measured SPL by about 10 dB.

--
Don Hills (dmhills at attglobaldotnet) Wellington, New Zealand
"I don't use Linux. I prefer to use an OS supported by a large multi-
national vendor, with a good office suite, excellent network/internet
software and decent hardware support."

In article ,
"TonyP" wrote:

I think it's safe to assume 128 real tweeters will not produce phase
coherence due to the physical distances involved.

That's putting it mildly. grin

I have seen an SPL car which used many (over a hundred, I think) midrange
units driven at a KHz or so. It didn't produce any significant SPL. As you
point out, you don't get the phase coherence that you can get at low
frequencies, plus you don't get "cabin gain" (resonance). Proper postioning
of subs can make a huge difference in measured SPL. The aim (pardon the pun)
is to get a "standing wave maxima" to occur at the microphone position. I
recall seeing some experimentation done with a single 10" sub in a small
hatchback car. The best position turned out to be with the enclosure sitting
about head height facing into one corner of the rear window. 6 inches either
way dropped the measured SPL by about 10 dB.

--
Don Hills (dmhills at attglobaldotnet) Wellington, New Zealand
"I don't use Linux. I prefer to use an OS supported by a large multi-
national vendor, with a good office suite, excellent network/internet
software and decent hardware support."

"TonyP" wrote in message
u
"Don Hills" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Curious) wrote:

Probably having many dynamic super-tweeters would do the job. If
their are 140 speakers each playing at 1 dB, you get around 140 dB
if they are facing the same direction. Right? Wrong?

Wrong.
1 tweeter = 1 dB.
2 tweeters = 4 dB.
4 tweeters = 7 dB.
8 tweeters = 10 dB.
16 tweeters = 13 dB.
32 tweeters = 16 dB.
64 tweeters = 19 dB.
128 tweeters = 22 dB.

Close enough to 140 tweeters for you?

The 3dB increase each time is debatable, it depends on whether you
get phase coherence or not, but it's close enough for this example.

I think it's safe to assume 128 real tweeters will not produce phase
coherence due to the physical distances involved.

This problem could be addressed by adjusting the phase/frequency
characteristics of the drive to each speaker. In these days of cheap-but
powerful DSP and power amp chips, it's not totally unthinkable.

However, your idealized example correctly points out that the
price-performance of very large arrays sucks. Yet, when you've mounted the
highest efficiency drivers you can find on the most suitable waveguides you
can find or make, multiple-speaker arrays are all that is left.

There are also amplitude-only alignments like the N=5 Bessel array that can
produce an array that essentially behaves like just one driver, but with
greater power handling capacity.

Effective Performance of Bessel Arrays
Author(s): Keele, Jr., D. B.
Publication: Volume 38 Number 10 pp. 723·748; October 1990
Publication: Preprint 2846; Convention 87; October 1989

I recently built a N=5 Bessel array out of small long-stroke, "full-range"
drivers and it pretty much worked as claimed.

"TonyP" wrote in message
u
"Don Hills" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Curious) wrote:

Probably having many dynamic super-tweeters would do the job. If
their are 140 speakers each playing at 1 dB, you get around 140 dB
if they are facing the same direction. Right? Wrong?

Wrong.
1 tweeter = 1 dB.
2 tweeters = 4 dB.
4 tweeters = 7 dB.
8 tweeters = 10 dB.
16 tweeters = 13 dB.
32 tweeters = 16 dB.
64 tweeters = 19 dB.
128 tweeters = 22 dB.

Close enough to 140 tweeters for you?

The 3dB increase each time is debatable, it depends on whether you
get phase coherence or not, but it's close enough for this example.

I think it's safe to assume 128 real tweeters will not produce phase
coherence due to the physical distances involved.

This problem could be addressed by adjusting the phase/frequency
characteristics of the drive to each speaker. In these days of cheap-but
powerful DSP and power amp chips, it's not totally unthinkable.

However, your idealized example correctly points out that the
price-performance of very large arrays sucks. Yet, when you've mounted the
highest efficiency drivers you can find on the most suitable waveguides you
can find or make, multiple-speaker arrays are all that is left.

There are also amplitude-only alignments like the N=5 Bessel array that can
produce an array that essentially behaves like just one driver, but with
greater power handling capacity.

Effective Performance of Bessel Arrays
Author(s): Keele, Jr., D. B.
Publication: Volume 38 Number 10 pp. 723·748; October 1990
Publication: Preprint 2846; Convention 87; October 1989

I recently built a N=5 Bessel array out of small long-stroke, "full-range"
drivers and it pretty much worked as claimed.

"TonyP" wrote in message
u
"Don Hills" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Curious) wrote:

Probably having many dynamic super-tweeters would do the job. If
their are 140 speakers each playing at 1 dB, you get around 140 dB
if they are facing the same direction. Right? Wrong?

Wrong.
1 tweeter = 1 dB.
2 tweeters = 4 dB.
4 tweeters = 7 dB.
8 tweeters = 10 dB.
16 tweeters = 13 dB.
32 tweeters = 16 dB.
64 tweeters = 19 dB.
128 tweeters = 22 dB.

Close enough to 140 tweeters for you?

The 3dB increase each time is debatable, it depends on whether you
get phase coherence or not, but it's close enough for this example.

I think it's safe to assume 128 real tweeters will not produce phase
coherence due to the physical distances involved.

This problem could be addressed by adjusting the phase/frequency
characteristics of the drive to each speaker. In these days of cheap-but
powerful DSP and power amp chips, it's not totally unthinkable.

However, your idealized example correctly points out that the
price-performance of very large arrays sucks. Yet, when you've mounted the
highest efficiency drivers you can find on the most suitable waveguides you
can find or make, multiple-speaker arrays are all that is left.

There are also amplitude-only alignments like the N=5 Bessel array that can
produce an array that essentially behaves like just one driver, but with
greater power handling capacity.

Effective Performance of Bessel Arrays
Author(s): Keele, Jr., D. B.
Publication: Volume 38 Number 10 pp. 723·748; October 1990
Publication: Preprint 2846; Convention 87; October 1989

I recently built a N=5 Bessel array out of small long-stroke, "full-range"
drivers and it pretty much worked as claimed.

"TonyP" wrote in message
u
"Don Hills" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Curious) wrote:

Probably having many dynamic super-tweeters would do the job. If
their are 140 speakers each playing at 1 dB, you get around 140 dB
if they are facing the same direction. Right? Wrong?

Wrong.
1 tweeter = 1 dB.
2 tweeters = 4 dB.
4 tweeters = 7 dB.
8 tweeters = 10 dB.
16 tweeters = 13 dB.
32 tweeters = 16 dB.
64 tweeters = 19 dB.
128 tweeters = 22 dB.

Close enough to 140 tweeters for you?

The 3dB increase each time is debatable, it depends on whether you
get phase coherence or not, but it's close enough for this example.

I think it's safe to assume 128 real tweeters will not produce phase
coherence due to the physical distances involved.

This problem could be addressed by adjusting the phase/frequency
characteristics of the drive to each speaker. In these days of cheap-but
powerful DSP and power amp chips, it's not totally unthinkable.

However, your idealized example correctly points out that the
price-performance of very large arrays sucks. Yet, when you've mounted the
highest efficiency drivers you can find on the most suitable waveguides you
can find or make, multiple-speaker arrays are all that is left.

There are also amplitude-only alignments like the N=5 Bessel array that can
produce an array that essentially behaves like just one driver, but with
greater power handling capacity.

Effective Performance of Bessel Arrays
Author(s): Keele, Jr., D. B.
Publication: Volume 38 Number 10 pp. 723·748; October 1990
Publication: Preprint 2846; Convention 87; October 1989

I recently built a N=5 Bessel array out of small long-stroke, "full-range"
drivers and it pretty much worked as claimed.

"Arny Krueger" writes:
[...]
Effective Performance of Bessel Arrays
Author(s): Keele, Jr., D. B.
Publication: Volume 38 Number 10 pp. 723·748; October 1990
Publication: Preprint 2846; Convention 87; October 1989

JAES? Audio Engineering Society?
--
% Randy Yates % "She's sweet on Wagner-I think she'd die for Beethoven.
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % She love the way Puccini lays down a tune, and
%%% 919-577-9882 % Verdi's always creepin' from her room."
%%%% % "Rockaria", *A New World Record*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

"Arny Krueger" writes:
[...]
Effective Performance of Bessel Arrays
Author(s): Keele, Jr., D. B.
Publication: Volume 38 Number 10 pp. 723·748; October 1990
Publication: Preprint 2846; Convention 87; October 1989

JAES? Audio Engineering Society?
--
% Randy Yates % "She's sweet on Wagner-I think she'd die for Beethoven.
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % She love the way Puccini lays down a tune, and
%%% 919-577-9882 % Verdi's always creepin' from her room."
%%%% % "Rockaria", *A New World Record*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

"Arny Krueger" writes:
[...]
Effective Performance of Bessel Arrays
Author(s): Keele, Jr., D. B.
Publication: Volume 38 Number 10 pp. 723·748; October 1990
Publication: Preprint 2846; Convention 87; October 1989

JAES? Audio Engineering Society?
--
% Randy Yates % "She's sweet on Wagner-I think she'd die for Beethoven.
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % She love the way Puccini lays down a tune, and
%%% 919-577-9882 % Verdi's always creepin' from her room."
%%%% % "Rockaria", *A New World Record*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

"Arny Krueger" writes:
[...]
Effective Performance of Bessel Arrays
Author(s): Keele, Jr., D. B.
Publication: Volume 38 Number 10 pp. 723·748; October 1990
Publication: Preprint 2846; Convention 87; October 1989

JAES? Audio Engineering Society?
--
% Randy Yates % "She's sweet on Wagner-I think she'd die for Beethoven.
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % She love the way Puccini lays down a tune, and
%%% 919-577-9882 % Verdi's always creepin' from her room."
%%%% % "Rockaria", *A New World Record*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"TonyP" wrote in message
. au
"Don Hills" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Curious) wrote:

Probably having many dynamic super-tweeters would do the job. If
their are 140 speakers each playing at 1 dB, you get around 140 dB
if they are facing the same direction. Right? Wrong?

Wrong.
1 tweeter = 1 dB.
2 tweeters = 4 dB.
4 tweeters = 7 dB.
8 tweeters = 10 dB.
16 tweeters = 13 dB.
32 tweeters = 16 dB.
64 tweeters = 19 dB.
128 tweeters = 22 dB.

Close enough to 140 tweeters for you?

The 3dB increase each time is debatable, it depends on whether you
get phase coherence or not, but it's close enough for this example.

I think it's safe to assume 128 real tweeters will not produce phase
coherence due to the physical distances involved.

This problem could be addressed by adjusting the phase/frequency
characteristics of the drive to each speaker. In these days of cheap-but
powerful DSP and power amp chips, it's not totally unthinkable.

I read with interest the original post. I'm still waiting to hear what tweeter has the highest SPL.
I suppose I could research myself, but I don't want to. I don't really belive the EV T350
has the most SPL, but I could be wrong. I invision a larger diaphram/ voice coil to absorb more
watts.

greg

In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"TonyP" wrote in message
. au
"Don Hills" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Curious) wrote:

Probably having many dynamic super-tweeters would do the job. If
their are 140 speakers each playing at 1 dB, you get around 140 dB
if they are facing the same direction. Right? Wrong?

Wrong.
1 tweeter = 1 dB.
2 tweeters = 4 dB.
4 tweeters = 7 dB.
8 tweeters = 10 dB.
16 tweeters = 13 dB.
32 tweeters = 16 dB.
64 tweeters = 19 dB.
128 tweeters = 22 dB.

Close enough to 140 tweeters for you?

The 3dB increase each time is debatable, it depends on whether you
get phase coherence or not, but it's close enough for this example.

I think it's safe to assume 128 real tweeters will not produce phase
coherence due to the physical distances involved.

This problem could be addressed by adjusting the phase/frequency
characteristics of the drive to each speaker. In these days of cheap-but
powerful DSP and power amp chips, it's not totally unthinkable.

I read with interest the original post. I'm still waiting to hear what tweeter has the highest SPL.
I suppose I could research myself, but I don't want to. I don't really belive the EV T350
has the most SPL, but I could be wrong. I invision a larger diaphram/ voice coil to absorb more
watts.

greg

In article ,
(gregs) wrote:

I read with interest the original post. I'm still waiting to hear what tweeter has the highest SPL.
I suppose I could research myself, but I don't want to. I don't really belive the EV T350
has the most SPL, but I could be wrong. I invision a larger diaphram/ voice coil to absorb more
watts.

How big? 12 inches? Remember, there is no free lunch.

--
Don Hills (dmhills at attglobaldotnet) Wellington, New Zealand

In article ,
(gregs) wrote:

I read with interest the original post. I'm still waiting to hear what tweeter has the highest SPL.
I suppose I could research myself, but I don't want to. I don't really belive the EV T350
has the most SPL, but I could be wrong. I invision a larger diaphram/ voice coil to absorb more
watts.

How big? 12 inches? Remember, there is no free lunch.

--
Don Hills (dmhills at attglobaldotnet) Wellington, New Zealand

In article ,
(gregs) wrote:

I read with interest the original post. I'm still waiting to hear what tweeter has the highest SPL.
I suppose I could research myself, but I don't want to. I don't really belive the EV T350
has the most SPL, but I could be wrong. I invision a larger diaphram/ voice coil to absorb more
watts.

How big? 12 inches? Remember, there is no free lunch.

--
Don Hills (dmhills at attglobaldotnet) Wellington, New Zealand

In article ,
(gregs) wrote:

I read with interest the original post. I'm still waiting to hear what tweeter has the highest SPL.
I suppose I could research myself, but I don't want to. I don't really belive the EV T350
has the most SPL, but I could be wrong. I invision a larger diaphram/ voice coil to absorb more
watts.

How big? 12 inches? Remember, there is no free lunch.

--
Don Hills (dmhills at attglobaldotnet) Wellington, New Zealand

On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 01:03:45 +1200, (Don Hills)
wrote:

In article ,
(gregs) wrote:

I read with interest the original post. I'm still waiting to hear what tweeter has the highest SPL.
I suppose I could research myself, but I don't want to. I don't really belive the EV T350
has the most SPL, but I could be wrong. I invision a larger diaphram/ voice coil to absorb more
watts.

How big? 12 inches? Remember, there is no free lunch.

Remember also that dispersion affects SPL greatly, and a narrow-angle
horn will provide the highest possible SPL from any given driver - but
only over a small area. EV or JBL compression drivers (especially if
fitted with beryllia diaphragms for low distortion at ultra-high
pressures) fitted to a rigid horn, will always have an advantage over
conventional direct radiators.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 01:03:45 +1200, (Don Hills)
wrote:

In article ,
(gregs) wrote:

I read with interest the original post. I'm still waiting to hear what tweeter has the highest SPL.
I suppose I could research myself, but I don't want to. I don't really belive the EV T350
has the most SPL, but I could be wrong. I invision a larger diaphram/ voice coil to absorb more
watts.

How big? 12 inches? Remember, there is no free lunch.

Remember also that dispersion affects SPL greatly, and a narrow-angle
horn will provide the highest possible SPL from any given driver - but
only over a small area. EV or JBL compression drivers (especially if
fitted with beryllia diaphragms for low distortion at ultra-high
pressures) fitted to a rigid horn, will always have an advantage over
conventional direct radiators.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 01:03:45 +1200, (Don Hills)
wrote:

In article ,
(gregs) wrote:

I read with interest the original post. I'm still waiting to hear what tweeter has the highest SPL.
I suppose I could research myself, but I don't want to. I don't really belive the EV T350
has the most SPL, but I could be wrong. I invision a larger diaphram/ voice coil to absorb more
watts.

How big? 12 inches? Remember, there is no free lunch.

Remember also that dispersion affects SPL greatly, and a narrow-angle
horn will provide the highest possible SPL from any given driver - but
only over a small area. EV or JBL compression drivers (especially if
fitted with beryllia diaphragms for low distortion at ultra-high
pressures) fitted to a rigid horn, will always have an advantage over
conventional direct radiators.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 01:03:45 +1200, (Don Hills)
wrote:

In article ,
(gregs) wrote:

I read with interest the original post. I'm still waiting to hear what tweeter has the highest SPL.
I suppose I could research myself, but I don't want to. I don't really belive the EV T350
has the most SPL, but I could be wrong. I invision a larger diaphram/ voice coil to absorb more
watts.

How big? 12 inches? Remember, there is no free lunch.

Remember also that dispersion affects SPL greatly, and a narrow-angle
horn will provide the highest possible SPL from any given driver - but
only over a small area. EV or JBL compression drivers (especially if
fitted with beryllia diaphragms for low distortion at ultra-high
pressures) fitted to a rigid horn, will always have an advantage over
conventional direct radiators.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"gregs" wrote in message
news
In article , "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"TonyP" wrote in message
u
"Don Hills" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Curious) wrote:

Probably having many dynamic super-tweeters would do the job. If
their are 140 speakers each playing at 1 dB, you get around 140 dB
if they are facing the same direction. Right? Wrong?

Wrong.
1 tweeter = 1 dB.
2 tweeters = 4 dB.
4 tweeters = 7 dB.
8 tweeters = 10 dB.
16 tweeters = 13 dB.
32 tweeters = 16 dB.
64 tweeters = 19 dB.
128 tweeters = 22 dB.

Close enough to 140 tweeters for you?

The 3dB increase each time is debatable, it depends on whether you
get phase coherence or not, but it's close enough for this example.

I think it's safe to assume 128 real tweeters will not produce phase
coherence due to the physical distances involved.

This problem could be addressed by adjusting the phase/frequency
characteristics of the drive to each speaker. In these days of
cheap-but powerful DSP and power amp chips, it's not totally
unthinkable.

I read with interest the original post. I'm still waiting to hear
what tweeter has the highest SPL. I suppose I could research myself,
but I don't want to. I don't really belive the EV T350 has the most
SPL, but I could be wrong. I invision a larger diaphram/ voice coil
to absorb more watts.

I would expect that modern compression drivers and horns from sources like
JBL, EV (current production), TAD and Community could outperform the old
T-350.

http://www.jblpro.com/pages/components/componts.htm

http://www.jblpro.com/pages/pub/components/2447.pdf - 30% rated efficiency

http://www.electrovoice.com/electrovoice/EVfiles.nsf/lookup/ND6Xeds/$File/ND6xeds.pdf -
28% rated efficiency

ftp://ftp.voicenet.com/communit/specs/new/vhf100.pdf

http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/pn...188429,00.html

"gregs" wrote in message
news
In article , "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"TonyP" wrote in message
u
"Don Hills" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Curious) wrote:

Probably having many dynamic super-tweeters would do the job. If
their are 140 speakers each playing at 1 dB, you get around 140 dB
if they are facing the same direction. Right? Wrong?

Wrong.
1 tweeter = 1 dB.
2 tweeters = 4 dB.
4 tweeters = 7 dB.
8 tweeters = 10 dB.
16 tweeters = 13 dB.
32 tweeters = 16 dB.
64 tweeters = 19 dB.
128 tweeters = 22 dB.

Close enough to 140 tweeters for you?

The 3dB increase each time is debatable, it depends on whether you
get phase coherence or not, but it's close enough for this example.

I think it's safe to assume 128 real tweeters will not produce phase
coherence due to the physical distances involved.

This problem could be addressed by adjusting the phase/frequency
characteristics of the drive to each speaker. In these days of
cheap-but powerful DSP and power amp chips, it's not totally
unthinkable.

I read with interest the original post. I'm still waiting to hear
what tweeter has the highest SPL. I suppose I could research myself,
but I don't want to. I don't really belive the EV T350 has the most
SPL, but I could be wrong. I invision a larger diaphram/ voice coil
to absorb more watts.

I would expect that modern compression drivers and horns from sources like
JBL, EV (current production), TAD and Community could outperform the old
T-350.

http://www.jblpro.com/pages/components/componts.htm

http://www.jblpro.com/pages/pub/components/2447.pdf - 30% rated efficiency

http://www.electrovoice.com/electrovoice/EVfiles.nsf/lookup/ND6Xeds/$File/ND6xeds.pdf -
28% rated efficiency

ftp://ftp.voicenet.com/communit/specs/new/vhf100.pdf

http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/pn...188429,00.html

"gregs" wrote in message
news
In article , "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"TonyP" wrote in message
u
"Don Hills" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Curious) wrote:

Probably having many dynamic super-tweeters would do the job. If
their are 140 speakers each playing at 1 dB, you get around 140 dB
if they are facing the same direction. Right? Wrong?

Wrong.
1 tweeter = 1 dB.
2 tweeters = 4 dB.
4 tweeters = 7 dB.
8 tweeters = 10 dB.
16 tweeters = 13 dB.
32 tweeters = 16 dB.
64 tweeters = 19 dB.
128 tweeters = 22 dB.

Close enough to 140 tweeters for you?

The 3dB increase each time is debatable, it depends on whether you
get phase coherence or not, but it's close enough for this example.

I think it's safe to assume 128 real tweeters will not produce phase
coherence due to the physical distances involved.

This problem could be addressed by adjusting the phase/frequency
characteristics of the drive to each speaker. In these days of
cheap-but powerful DSP and power amp chips, it's not totally
unthinkable.

I read with interest the original post. I'm still waiting to hear
what tweeter has the highest SPL. I suppose I could research myself,
but I don't want to. I don't really belive the EV T350 has the most
SPL, but I could be wrong. I invision a larger diaphram/ voice coil
to absorb more watts.

I would expect that modern compression drivers and horns from sources like
JBL, EV (current production), TAD and Community could outperform the old
T-350.

http://www.jblpro.com/pages/components/componts.htm

http://www.jblpro.com/pages/pub/components/2447.pdf - 30% rated efficiency

http://www.electrovoice.com/electrovoice/EVfiles.nsf/lookup/ND6Xeds/$File/ND6xeds.pdf -
28% rated efficiency

ftp://ftp.voicenet.com/communit/specs/new/vhf100.pdf

http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/pn...188429,00.html

"gregs" wrote in message
news
In article , "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"TonyP" wrote in message
u
"Don Hills" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Curious) wrote:

Probably having many dynamic super-tweeters would do the job. If
their are 140 speakers each playing at 1 dB, you get around 140 dB
if they are facing the same direction. Right? Wrong?

Wrong.
1 tweeter = 1 dB.
2 tweeters = 4 dB.
4 tweeters = 7 dB.
8 tweeters = 10 dB.
16 tweeters = 13 dB.
32 tweeters = 16 dB.
64 tweeters = 19 dB.
128 tweeters = 22 dB.

Close enough to 140 tweeters for you?

The 3dB increase each time is debatable, it depends on whether you
get phase coherence or not, but it's close enough for this example.

I think it's safe to assume 128 real tweeters will not produce phase
coherence due to the physical distances involved.

This problem could be addressed by adjusting the phase/frequency
characteristics of the drive to each speaker. In these days of
cheap-but powerful DSP and power amp chips, it's not totally
unthinkable.

I read with interest the original post. I'm still waiting to hear
what tweeter has the highest SPL. I suppose I could research myself,
but I don't want to. I don't really belive the EV T350 has the most
SPL, but I could be wrong. I invision a larger diaphram/ voice coil
to absorb more watts.

I would expect that modern compression drivers and horns from sources like
JBL, EV (current production), TAD and Community could outperform the old
T-350.

http://www.jblpro.com/pages/components/componts.htm

http://www.jblpro.com/pages/pub/components/2447.pdf - 30% rated efficiency

http://www.electrovoice.com/electrovoice/EVfiles.nsf/lookup/ND6Xeds/$File/ND6xeds.pdf -
28% rated efficiency

ftp://ftp.voicenet.com/communit/specs/new/vhf100.pdf

http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/pn...188429,00.html

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ...
There are also amplitude-only alignments like the N=5 Bessel array that can
produce an array that essentially behaves like just one driver, but with
greater power handling capacity.

Are their good for high-frequencies?

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ...
There are also amplitude-only alignments like the N=5 Bessel array that can
produce an array that essentially behaves like just one driver, but with
greater power handling capacity.

Are their good for high-frequencies?

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ...
There are also amplitude-only alignments like the N=5 Bessel array that can
produce an array that essentially behaves like just one driver, but with
greater power handling capacity.

Are their good for high-frequencies?

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ...
There are also amplitude-only alignments like the N=5 Bessel array that can
produce an array that essentially behaves like just one driver, but with
greater power handling capacity.

Are their good for high-frequencies?

"Curious" wrote in message
om
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
There are also amplitude-only alignments like the N=5 Bessel array
that can produce an array that essentially behaves like just one
driver, but with greater power handling capacity.

Are their good for high-frequencies?

At a substantial distance from the array.