Hi guys
I'm hoping that someone would be able to tell me what this SENSITIVITY rating means please?
I'm accustomed to interpreting sensitivity ratings as XdB/1-watt/1-metre.
This SENSITIVITY 1,0W has me totally confused. I also have a smaller model the same, that rates SENSITIVITY at 1,7W. Puzzling.
Any thoughts from the panel of experts on how to interpret this?
Appreciated.
-SONDEKNZ
PS: If you're able to walk me through your calculation steps so that I can learn, I would be grateful...
I'm hoping that someone would be able to tell me what this SENSITIVITY rating means please?
I'm accustomed to interpreting sensitivity ratings as XdB/1-watt/1-metre.
This SENSITIVITY 1,0W has me totally confused. I also have a smaller model the same, that rates SENSITIVITY at 1,7W. Puzzling.
Any thoughts from the panel of experts on how to interpret this?
Appreciated.
-SONDEKNZ
PS: If you're able to walk me through your calculation steps so that I can learn, I would be grateful...
Attachments
There doesn't appear to be anything to walk though, learn or calculate as far as I can see. It's largely a nonsense label, like many that are attached to equipment since there isn't sufficient room for a full manual, and evidently dates from before the German reunification. You used to find similar labels on the back of cheap mini-systems from catalogue stores. Hewn from solid blocks of pure chipboard. 
Edit, having found a little more on the speakers. Still doesn't alter the fact that speaker sensitivity in the usual sense is given in decibels for a given input, be it in Watts or Volts. Either way, I wouldn't read too much into it. If it's the same company as exists today under that name, they now appear to build car bodies.
Edit, having found a little more on the speakers. Still doesn't alter the fact that speaker sensitivity in the usual sense is given in decibels for a given input, be it in Watts or Volts. Either way, I wouldn't read too much into it. If it's the same company as exists today under that name, they now appear to build car bodies.
Last edited:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Magnat, which is one of the leading international providers of high-quality home and car audio equipment in more than 50 countries since 40years.
Magnat Plasma Hochtner Artikel von WWW.PLASMATWEETER.DE
A bit of googling leads to believe that this is the input needed to reach 96dB.
Magnat Ribbon 6... | Audiokarma Home Audio Stereo Discussion Forums
They are also supposed to be (have been?) really rather good.
Magnat Ribbon 6... | Audiokarma Home Audio Stereo Discussion Forums
They are also supposed to be (have been?) really rather good.
That is a great question!
There is no reason on earth why this should be such a difficult specification for manufacturers to agree on, but it is. This is another case of "buyer beware" where you have to understand the physics behind the issue to know the right questions to ask.
Many years ago 8Ω was effectively considered to be the "nominal" impedance of every loudspeaker on the market. Even though this was a lie, it was a consistent lie that made loudspeaker sensitivity ratings somewhat comparable.
So what in the world does sensitivity at "1 watt" actually mean? When it comes to a driver or loudspeaker system, very little. Then how was the test performed? Easy. Just assume the loudspeaker is an 8Ω resistor, 1 watt into 8Ω requires 2.83V. So they just drove the loudspeaker with 2.83V.
Have a look at a real "8Ω" loudspeaker's impedance curve:
Is this really 8Ω? Not a chance. It varies like a politician's promises depending on frequency.
Bottom Line
The trend of every honest loudspeaker manufacturer is to specify sensitivity at 1 meter when driven by 2.83V. That means that a "4Ω" loudspeaker will generally be 3dB more sensitive than an "8Ω" loudspeaker, but if the impedance curve is supplied as per the above illustration along with the "nominal" impedance specification, the end user will have the tools required to make an informed decision.
Last edited:
Is this why amplifier matching is very critical with some loudspeakers ?
This is perhaps a side effects of the mass production, the information is retained everywhere and employées must do what they have to do.
Very true, but even this has problems, since a small label fixed to a loudspeaker is not likely to be an ideal place for it. That said, it would be interesting, if expensive, for a boutique company to fix a long brass or similar plate to the back of their speaker with full FR, impedance etc. graphs engraved onto it. Completely unrealistic for most of course, so small labels should be seen as an approximate guide rather than a cast-in-stone set of factors; if the manufacturer wishes to provide full information it is better done elsewhere. Even this has a ripple effect though, since they're likely to be damned by different circles whatever they do.
Back on the specifics here, it tends to raise the knotty issue that while 1m is normally assumed for sensitivity ratings, in practice for most multiway speakers (short of mini-monitors or coax units) you'll need 2m distance or more for optimum summing, so in addition to being questionable practice if used for design purposes, providing a 1m value is itself not likely to be representative. Which takes you back to that damned whatever you do situation once again.
Thanks Scottmoose !
I've learned two things today :
What YUP mean
And that you never learn anything by talking to yourself
Last edited:
That weird sensitivity rating is based on the german DIN 45500 which requires speakers to be able to achieve 96dB at 1m (actually measured in µBar) in order to be legally marketed as HiFi.
Thus the manufacturer states the Watts needed to get there but it could be any impedance between 4 and 16Ω.
DIN 45500 was officially used from about 1965 until the late '80s or early '90s and contains a lot of stuff which seems odd these days.
It did however also limit the maximum allowable amount of non-linear distortion at that volume (less than 3% from 250-1000Hz and under 1% above) and max impedance variation (+-20%).
Weiterleitungshinweis
You need to scroll down a bit and it is in english.
Thus the manufacturer states the Watts needed to get there but it could be any impedance between 4 and 16Ω.
DIN 45500 was officially used from about 1965 until the late '80s or early '90s and contains a lot of stuff which seems odd these days.
It did however also limit the maximum allowable amount of non-linear distortion at that volume (less than 3% from 250-1000Hz and under 1% above) and max impedance variation (+-20%).
Weiterleitungshinweis
You need to scroll down a bit and it is in english.
It would have been nice if adherence to that standard was referenced on the label - of course "back in the day", how many of us understood or could easily research what that meant? Certainly the results wouldn't be available within the time it takes to release your finger from the "enter" button and look up at the screen - those of us dinosaurs who are still using a desk-top PC for our "serious" work.
Last edited:
Well team...
Many thanks for all the feedback. The truth is that I still don't have a clear answer around the actual sensitivity of these excellent little German speakers.
My instincts and experience tell me that it sits somewhere around 91dB, but that's simply a guesstimate.
What I would say is that I have put these MAGNAT ALL-RIBBON speakers up against some of the best - sub $10,000 - modern-day speakers out there.
Frankly, they just take all comers. Unbelievable for a smallish, 1980s sealed box design with virtually no cabinet complexity.
I recently learned that these same MAGNAT tweeters were used in successful DAHLQUIST and PROAC STUDIO designs. I imagine that this frequency extension helped carry the day and win many admirers.
I will say that I believe the MAGNAT tweeters - more of a super tweeter - with their very smooth but discernable 34kHz extension, seem to make the big difference.
I know that we are all taught that our own hearing falls off around 15-20kHz, but recent findings suggest that humans detect high frequencies in many different parts of our bodies. Apparently there are miniscule 'hairs' in the bones of our skull that detect high frequencies - and our eyeballs too pick up the tops.
(An easy test for anyone who wears spectacles... Try it and see if you get better tops with the specs removed!)
Even up against modern 25kHz tweeters, my audio buddies and I can very easily and clearly hear the air, detail and spatial clues revealed higher in the frequency spectrum. Everything just sounds more live and 'there'. Ironically, this is true of CD (Red-book) source recordings as well, which are not 'supposed' to deliver anything above 20kHz, but all ears around our way can hear the difference. Obviously the difference with LP playback is even greater.
I gather that there is still a lot that we don't actually understand about how human hearing works, but it is interesting that amp manufacturers everywhere seem to be heading towards wide bandwidth designs.
(Spectral, Job, First Watt, etc. etc...)
What a great hobby!
Thanks again, everyone.
Many thanks for all the feedback. The truth is that I still don't have a clear answer around the actual sensitivity of these excellent little German speakers.
My instincts and experience tell me that it sits somewhere around 91dB, but that's simply a guesstimate.
What I would say is that I have put these MAGNAT ALL-RIBBON speakers up against some of the best - sub $10,000 - modern-day speakers out there.
Frankly, they just take all comers. Unbelievable for a smallish, 1980s sealed box design with virtually no cabinet complexity.
I recently learned that these same MAGNAT tweeters were used in successful DAHLQUIST and PROAC STUDIO designs. I imagine that this frequency extension helped carry the day and win many admirers.
I will say that I believe the MAGNAT tweeters - more of a super tweeter - with their very smooth but discernable 34kHz extension, seem to make the big difference.
I know that we are all taught that our own hearing falls off around 15-20kHz, but recent findings suggest that humans detect high frequencies in many different parts of our bodies. Apparently there are miniscule 'hairs' in the bones of our skull that detect high frequencies - and our eyeballs too pick up the tops.
(An easy test for anyone who wears spectacles... Try it and see if you get better tops with the specs removed!)
Even up against modern 25kHz tweeters, my audio buddies and I can very easily and clearly hear the air, detail and spatial clues revealed higher in the frequency spectrum. Everything just sounds more live and 'there'. Ironically, this is true of CD (Red-book) source recordings as well, which are not 'supposed' to deliver anything above 20kHz, but all ears around our way can hear the difference. Obviously the difference with LP playback is even greater.
I gather that there is still a lot that we don't actually understand about how human hearing works, but it is interesting that amp manufacturers everywhere seem to be heading towards wide bandwidth designs.
(Spectral, Job, First Watt, etc. etc...)
What a great hobby!
Thanks again, everyone.
Which Dahlquist designs, out of curiosity? The original DQ10 used a range of fairly pedestrian domes, cones and even the Motorola "Lemon Squeezer" piezo super tweeter horn, along with a very interesting crossover.
Hard to believe they are an over 40yr old design, and listed new in 1974/5? for $395 US / pair.
Anyway, back to topic - if Charles is correct, the DIN 45-500 standard specified 96dB at 1 meter, as well as an envelope of bandwidth and distortion levels, but interestingly enough from the link he gave above not the measurement conditions (anechoic chamber or otherwise). The manufacturer could well have assumed that adherence to those figures was understood as a given.
Hard to believe they are an over 40yr old design, and listed new in 1974/5? for $395 US / pair.
Anyway, back to topic - if Charles is correct, the DIN 45-500 standard specified 96dB at 1 meter, as well as an envelope of bandwidth and distortion levels, but interestingly enough from the link he gave above not the measurement conditions (anechoic chamber or otherwise). The manufacturer could well have assumed that adherence to those figures was understood as a given.
CHRISB
I believe that the DAHLQUIST DQM-5 used this same MAGNAT (super) tweeter; and perhaps some other models also.
Yeah it is hard to believe that these speakers were less than $US500 back in the 1970, but worth remembering that $3000-5000 brought you a 3-bedroom home in those days. SO these speakers were a nice deposit on a house!
None of these were cheap speakers, back in the day.
I believe that the DAHLQUIST DQM-5 used this same MAGNAT (super) tweeter; and perhaps some other models also.
Yeah it is hard to believe that these speakers were less than $US500 back in the 1970, but worth remembering that $3000-5000 brought you a 3-bedroom home in those days. SO these speakers were a nice deposit on a house!
None of these were cheap speakers, back in the day.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.