Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
At my disposal are three 4-ohm speakers and one 16-ohm speakers.
I'm considering wiring the three 4-ohm speakers in series, then connecting that in parallel to an 16-ohm speaker, which should result in in overall 8-ohm load. 4-4-4 |_____amp | 16 Is there any danger with having 1 speaker on one side of the parallel, while having 3 speakers on the other side? |
#2
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 2/10/2010 2:26 PM ShadowTek spake thus:
At my disposal are three 4-ohm speakers and one 16-ohm speakers. I'm considering wiring the three 4-ohm speakers in series, then connecting that in parallel to an 16-ohm speaker, which should result in in overall 8-ohm load. 4-4-4 |_____amp | 16 Wrong. The formula for parallel resistance is: R1 R2 Rt = -------- R1 + R2 yielding ~6.8 ohms in this case. Close, but no cigar. Is there any danger with having 1 speaker on one side of the parallel, while having 3 speakers on the other side? Nope, although don't expect equal power distribution among the various speakers. But so far as the amp goes, it doesn't care who is where. Oh, and be sure to get the speakers connected in phase. You can check this by connecting a battery to the terminals and watching whether the cone moves in or out. If they aren't already marked, label the speaker terminals "+" and "-", then connect them in phase. -- You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it. - a Usenet "apology" |
#3
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 2010-02-11, David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 2/10/2010 2:26 PM ShadowTek spake thus: At my disposal are three 4-ohm speakers and one 16-ohm speakers. I'm considering wiring the three 4-ohm speakers in series, then connecting that in parallel to an 16-ohm speaker, which should result in in overall 8-ohm load. 4-4-4 |_____amp | 16 Wrong. The formula for parallel resistance is: R1 R2 Rt = -------- R1 + R2 yielding ~6.8 ohms in this case. Close, but no cigar. LMFAO I'd added 4+4+4 in my head and got 16! I did it right, I just messed up. lol Is there any danger with having 1 speaker on one side of the parallel, while having 3 speakers on the other side? Nope, although don't expect equal power distribution among the various speakers. But so far as the amp goes, it doesn't care who is where. Assuming that there would be 16 ohms on *both* sides of the parallel (like I was originally thinking), the power distribution among the four 4-ohms and the one 16-ohm would be the same, right? 4+4+4+4 |______amp | 16 |
#4
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 2/10/2010 6:26 PM ShadowTek spake thus:
Assuming that there would be 16 ohms on *both* sides of the parallel (like I was originally thinking), the power distribution among the four 4-ohms and the one 16-ohm would be the same, right? 4+4+4+4 |______amp | 16 Yes; half on each side. You basically have a parallel network, so current divides evenly between the two sides. (Voltage is equal across both sides.) -- You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it. - a Usenet "apology" |
#5
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "David Nebenzahl" wrote in message .com... On 2/10/2010 6:26 PM ShadowTek spake thus: Assuming that there would be 16 ohms on *both* sides of the parallel (like I was originally thinking), the power distribution among the four 4-ohms and the one 16-ohm would be the same, right? 4+4+4+4 |______amp | 16 Yes; half on each side. You basically have a parallel network, so current divides evenly between the two sides. (Voltage is equal across both sides.) Considering they are speakers with complex impedances rather than resistors, and considering the 4 ohm and 16 ohm speakers are likely to be different in frequency Vs impedance, once again it is not that simple. And who knows what the efficiencies, power rating, and interactions between speaker radiation patterns are, so the likely acoustic outcome is anyone's guess! However at least the amp will probably be OK with such a load if that's all that matters. MrT. |
#6
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 2/10/2010 11:13 PM Mr.T spake thus:
"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message .com... On 2/10/2010 6:26 PM ShadowTek spake thus: Assuming that there would be 16 ohms on *both* sides of the parallel (like I was originally thinking), the power distribution among the four 4-ohms and the one 16-ohm would be the same, right? 4+4+4+4 |______amp | 16 Yes; half on each side. You basically have a parallel network, so current divides evenly between the two sides. (Voltage is equal across both sides.) Considering they are speakers with complex impedances rather than resistors, and considering the 4 ohm and 16 ohm speakers are likely to be different in frequency Vs impedance, once again it is not that simple. And who knows what the efficiencies, power rating, and interactions between speaker radiation patterns are, so the likely acoustic outcome is anyone's guess! However at least the amp will probably be OK with such a load if that's all that matters. Meaningless quibbles from you as usual. There will be as close to half the power on each side as is matters in this case. How the speakers handle that power is a complex subject, as you point out. But there will be half on one side and half on the other. -- You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it. - a Usenet "apology" |
#7
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "David Nebenzahl" wrote in message .com... Meaningless quibbles from you as usual. To *you*, quite probably. There will be as close to half the power on each side as is matters in this case. How the speakers handle that power is a complex subject, as you point out. I'm glad you agree on something then. MrT. |
#8
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 2010-02-11, David Nebenzahl wrote:
There will be as close to half the power on each side as is matters in this case. How the speakers handle that power is a complex subject, as you point out. But there will be half on one side and half on the other. Thanks. This is my first time attemping to wire speakers in both series/parallel, so I wanted to be sure. |
#9
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
ShadowTek wrote:
On 2010-02-11, David Nebenzahl wrote: There will be as close to half the power on each side as is matters in this case. How the speakers handle that power is a complex subject, as you point out. But there will be half on one side and half on the other. Thanks. This is my first time attemping to wire speakers in both series/parallel, so I wanted to be sure. What problem are you trying to solve? Kind regards Peter Larsen |
#10
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 2/11/2010 11:26 PM Peter Larsen spake thus:
ShadowTek wrote: On 2010-02-11, David Nebenzahl wrote: There will be as close to half the power on each side as is matters in this case. How the speakers handle that power is a complex subject, as you point out. But there will be half on one side and half on the other. Thanks. This is my first time attemping to wire speakers in both series/parallel, so I wanted to be sure. What problem are you trying to solve? Didn't you see his original message? [Assuming gender here] At my disposal are three 4-ohm speakers and one 16-ohm speakers. I'm considering wiring the three 4-ohm speakers in series, then connecting that in parallel to an 16-ohm speaker, which should result in in overall 8-ohm load. [I think he actually has *4* 4-ohm speakers, or maybe not.] So he's trying to use what speakers he has at hand. Sounds reasonable to me. -- You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it. - a Usenet "apology" |
#11
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
![]() What problem are you trying to solve? Didn't you see his original message? [Assuming gender here] At my disposal are three 4-ohm speakers and one 16-ohm speakers. I'm considering wiring the three 4-ohm speakers in series, then connecting that in parallel to an 16-ohm speaker, which should result in in overall 8-ohm load. And he doesn't say what problem he wants to solve, what sounds he wants to amplify. [I think he actually has *4* 4-ohm speakers, or maybe not.] So he's trying to use what speakers he has at hand. Sounds reasonable to me. No, as I see this it comes across as plain silly if it is to be used to distribute sound. Kind regards Peter Larsen |
#12
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 2010-02-12, Peter Larsen wrote:
What problem are you trying to solve? Didn't you see his original message? [Assuming gender here] At my disposal are three 4-ohm speakers and one 16-ohm speakers. I'm considering wiring the three 4-ohm speakers in series, then connecting that in parallel to an 16-ohm speaker, which should result in in overall 8-ohm load. And he doesn't say what problem he wants to solve, what sounds he wants to amplify. [I think he actually has *4* 4-ohm speakers, or maybe not.] So he's trying to use what speakers he has at hand. Sounds reasonable to me. First off, I currently have what I assume is a 4-ohm stable amp. It's a Cambridge Soundworks FPS2000. The manual does not give the amp's specs, and I can only assume that it is at least a 4-ohm stable amp since the four speakers that came with it are 4-ohm. The speakers that came with it are 7-watt 3-inch, and they produce respectable highs, but they don't dip down into the mid-range worth a crap. So, I found some 4-ohm cabinet speakers that I forgot I still had and replaced the old 3-inch speakers with them. These 4-ohm cabinet speakers have a satisfying mid-range, but they don't go into the high-range very far. So, I thought that if I could connect both the 3-inch speaker *and* the cabinet speakers, I could get the wider frequency range that I desire. Anyway, that way the original concern. I could have just stopped there, wired them in a series pair, and been done with it, but I wanted to play around, experiment with what was possible, and learn something along the way. I only actually have three 4-ohm speakers (per channel) BTW--two of the 3-inchers and the cabinet speaker. I just went ahead a said four since I had previously discussed a 16/16 parallel, and I just wanted to stick by that to avoid confution. |
#13
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 2/12/2010 1:36 PM ShadowTek spake thus:
On 2010-02-12, Peter Larsen wrote: What problem are you trying to solve? Didn't you see his original message? [Assuming gender here] At my disposal are three 4-ohm speakers and one 16-ohm speakers. I'm considering wiring the three 4-ohm speakers in series, then connecting that in parallel to an 16-ohm speaker, which should result in in overall 8-ohm load. And he doesn't say what problem he wants to solve, what sounds he wants to amplify. [I think he actually has *4* 4-ohm speakers, or maybe not.] So he's trying to use what speakers he has at hand. Sounds reasonable to me. First off, I currently have what I assume is a 4-ohm stable amp. It's a Cambridge Soundworks FPS2000. The manual does not give the amp's specs, and I can only assume that it is at least a 4-ohm stable amp since the four speakers that came with it are 4-ohm. The speakers that came with it are 7-watt 3-inch, and they produce respectable highs, but they don't dip down into the mid-range worth a crap. So, I found some 4-ohm cabinet speakers that I forgot I still had and replaced the old 3-inch speakers with them. These 4-ohm cabinet speakers have a satisfying mid-range, but they don't go into the high-range very far. So, I thought that if I could connect both the 3-inch speaker *and* the cabinet speakers, I could get the wider frequency range that I desire. So now you're into trying to assign different frequencies to different speakers; you didn't explain that before. Not to pop your balloon or anything, but you might not get the results you're hoping for. When you write about certain speakers having or not having a satisfactory midrange, etc., you seem to be forgetting something important about speaker design. It's called a "crossover", and it's a (usually, not always) simple circuit that actually separates different frequencies to different speakers. Without it, all bets are kinda off as to what kind of performance you're going to get out of this lash-up of mongrel speakers. It sounds as if you're going to need a 3-way crossover (separate outputs for woofer, midrange and tweeter). I'm explaining all this in detail assuming you don't already know about it. If you do, my apologies. But otherwise, you might want to do some reading about it. -- You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it. - a Usenet "apology" |
#14
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 2010-02-12, David Nebenzahl wrote:
So now you're into trying to assign different frequencies to different speakers; you didn't explain that before. Not to pop your balloon or anything, but you might not get the results you're hoping for. When you write about certain speakers having or not having a satisfactory midrange, etc., you seem to be forgetting something important about speaker design. It's called a "crossover", and it's a (usually, not always) simple circuit that actually separates different frequencies to different speakers. You mean built *into* the speaker? Unless that's what you mean (and assuming that it would filter the signal that is being sent to the rest of the speakers in the circuit), I don't see how the outcome would be any different than I had originally expected. I've used *external* crossovers before for subwoofers, so I *do* know what their purpose is. I've never used them for mids and highs though, so I don't have any experience with how noticable the difference is. Without it, all bets are kinda off as to what kind of performance you're going to get out of this lash-up of mongrel speakers. It sounds as if you're going to need a 3-way crossover (separate outputs for woofer, midrange and tweeter). I'm explaining all this in detail assuming you don't already know about it. If you do, my apologies. But otherwise, you might want to do some reading about it. I'f I *were* to buy some inline mid and high crossovers for each channel, that would mean that I would have the 4-ohm cabinet speaker and the 16-ohm speaker on the mid crossover, and the two 4-ohm 3-inch speakers on the high crossover, so the result would have to be a parallel of the first pair, and a series of the second pair? Would a series of the first pair (24-ohm) paralleled with a series of the second pair (8-ohm) actually work out? (6-ohm for whole circuit) |
#15
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 2/12/2010 4:39 PM ShadowTek spake thus:
On 2010-02-12, David Nebenzahl wrote: So now you're into trying to assign different frequencies to different speakers; you didn't explain that before. Not to pop your balloon or anything, but you might not get the results you're hoping for. When you write about certain speakers having or not having a satisfactory midrange, etc., you seem to be forgetting something important about speaker design. It's called a "crossover", and it's a (usually, not always) simple circuit that actually separates different frequencies to different speakers. You mean built *into* the speaker? No, of course not: crossovers are external to the speakers. I've used *external* crossovers before for subwoofers, so I *do* know what their purpose is. I've never used them for mids and highs though, so I don't have any experience with how noticable the difference is. Well, the crossover keeps high-frequency signals out of low-frequency speakers and vice versa. A 3-way crossover divides the audio spectrum into 3 bands: the woofer gets the bottom, the midrange the middle and the tweeter the top. The idea is to keep frequencies that the particular speaker (midrange, tweeter, etc.) isn't capable of handling well out of it entirely. You also probably don't want more than one crossover per set of speakers, for a number of reasons, among them complexity. -- You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it. - a Usenet "apology" |
#16
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
David Nebenzahl wrote:
You mean built *into* the speaker? No, of course not: crossovers are external to the speakers. Warning: David, with speaker you mean loudspeaker unit, the OP means loudspeaker unit(s) in box. You also probably don't want more than one crossover per set of speakers, for a number of reasons, among them complexity. The solution to poor sounding loudspeakers is to get better loudspeakers. I appreciate the intent to learn, and experiments combined with reading is a great method for learning, but experimenting with how resistors combine is best done with resistors. Also there is a simple "order of magnitude" issue with the original concept of combining 3 4 Ohm loudspeakers and one 16 Ohm loudspeaker on two amplifier channels (assuming that was what the OP asked about), two 4 Ohm loudspeakers in series on one channel is in a low quality context acceptable, but there is no good way to combine the remaining 4 Ohm unit and a 16 Ohm unit on the other amplifier channel, the solution is to omit the 16 Ohm unit based on the amplifier being spec'ed for a minimum load of 4 Ohms. Kind regards Peter Larsen |
#17
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "David Nebenzahl" wrote in message s.com... You mean built *into* the speaker? No, of course not: crossovers are external to the speakers. He probably means "built into the speaker" *enclosure* though, and that is where most crossovers are usually located. The idea is to keep frequencies that the particular speaker (midrange, tweeter, etc.) isn't capable of handling well out of it entirely. And usually not have two sets of drivers covering the same frequency range and perhaps creating a response peak. And lets not even talk about frequency dependant phase cancellation problems! :-) MrT. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Calculatating RC parallel and series impedance networks. | Vacuum Tubes | |||
Calculatating RC parallel and series impedance networks. | Vacuum Tubes | |||
Regulated heaters: series/parallel voltage/current question | Vacuum Tubes | |||
Series or Parallel Woofers? | Vacuum Tubes | |||
Driving speakers in series and/or parallel | Tech |