Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
![]() James Lehman wrote: wrote in message oups.com... James Lehman wrote: I have measured the woofers grouped in iso sets What is an "iso set?" 4 woofers combined into a set of 2 isobaric coupled pairs, with no cabinet behind them. So, why not call them that, instead of inventing some nonsense term? and the figures that I get would indicate that they should be able to put out a max SPL of about 117dB at 1 meter, At what frequency? Since these things are most assuredly excursion limited, as the vast majority of woofers are at low frequencies, and since excursion goes essentially as the inverse square root of frequency, a max SPL with a frequency limit is pretty meaningless. Max dispersion freq is where the cone moves the easiest to produces the greatest volume in the room. At 23Hz, at Xmax, for all the woofers together, you can expect to use the least power to produce the most sound. It has to do with the output of the port combined with the output of the cone. Several points: First, it is noted how you have failed to answer the question. Second, the term "dispersion frequency", given your explanation, is simply nonsense. "Dispersion" in this realm, already has well understood meanings, and your misuse of the term is also noted. In looking through a wide variety of references to the term, there is not a single instance found in ANY of them that uses the term "dispersion" in the manner you do. There are simply none that even come close. In the context of loudspeakers, the term has two meanings: 1. The separation of a complex signal into its constituent frequencies or wavelengths, e.g., dispersion due to non-uniform group delay or, 2. The distribution of an acoustic signal across an angle or an area, e.g., the measure of the directivity of an acoustic source. Third, there is already a measure for "the least power to produce the most sound." It's called efficiency, and it is the ratio of the acoustic power output to the electrical power input. It has nothing to do with XMax. do you know what Xmax means and why it is independent of frequency? Fourth, Your description of what is happening at the box tuning frequency is basically at odds with the well- known and well-understood behavior of vented loud- speaker systems at the enclosure resonance. Contrary to your statement: "It has to do with the output of the port combined with the output of the cone." the VAST majority of the total system volume velocity at Fb (the enclosure resonant frequency) comes from the port, and very little comes from the cone. To quote Small: "Over the frequency range near Fb where the passive radiator (or vent) contronutes most usefully to the system output, it does so through reducing and replacing, rather than supplementing (as so often implied) the motion of the driver." JAES, vol 22, no 11, 1974 Nov. Examine also the expression for displacement vs frequency Small presents (Eq. 71 and 73, JAES, vol 20, no 10, 1973 Oct), which clearly illustrates Xd(w) showing a minimum at Fb. That also corresponds to a minimum in the electrical impedance at the same frequency. Given these facts, it's thus obvious that two of your assertions: 1. That the output of the port is combined with the output of the woofers at Fb to increase the total output of the system, and 2. The system efficiency, what you call "the least power to produce the most sound," is maximum at Fb, are wrong. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
I have a 88 Oldsmobile Custom cruiser... Looking for Subs... | Car Audio | |||
wiring options for 2 subs (2 omhs vs 4 ohms) | Car Audio | |||
Weird problem with subs | Car Audio | |||
Why arent my friends subs very loud??? | Car Audio | |||
Alpine deck blew my subs! | Car Audio |