|
|||||||
| Home | Forums | Rules | Articles | Store | Gallery | Blogs | Register | Donations | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read | Search |
|
Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.
Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving |
|
dfidler:Notes |
|
|
|
|
'What compromise best suits my specific needs'. ie, Does footprint size matter to you? Do you prefer BIG woofers? Reflex, sealed or transmission line? |
| You can always keep all music in the digital realm as much as possible. Rip it all to a lossless format, store it on a PC and play it back through digital outputs right into a DSP that accepts digital inputs. |
|
Here is a bit of my experience in tuning speakers although it is all only generalised and some drive units may respond differently. Speakers with alot of energy arround 5KHz tend to sound very detailed but a bit harsh. Energy arround 8KHz tends to make the speaker sound detailed and tends to make the instruments highly defined in the image. This is not natural but some people like it. More energy through the 200 to 80Hz region will tend to make the speaker sound warm, too much and it will sound thick and boomy. The 2-4K region affects the vocal significantly and adjusting the phase of the crossove even if it doesn't have much affect on frequency response can adjust the presentation of the vocal. |
|
low level circuits and active circuits create much lower levels of distortion than those that occur in passive crossovers and the distortion scales with the level. It is not hard to create low level active circuits that have -100dB or greater THD. It is very diffcult to achive this for the large inductors that are used in a passive crossover. If you use large air cored inductors you can minimise it but the magnetic field escaping from them can easly couple into other inductors in the crossover creating a little transformer and causing crostalk from one part of the circuit to another. As the power level increases these inductors will get hot, something low level ciruits if properly designed should never do. When an inductor gets hot its charcteristics shift so its value will start to change. But none of this is the main advantage of an active design. The main advantage is that the amplifer is directly coupled to the terminals of the speaker. This means that after a transient occurs and the speaker is returning to it resting position, it is a coil moving in a magnetic field so it will create a electrical signal. In a passive design this signal has to pass back through the crossover before it is damped by the amplifers voltage feedback. In an active design the electrical signal (back emf) is damped directly by the amplifier. I could go on about this but much more is described on Rod Elliots site:- http://sound.westhost.com/bi-amp.htm His rational for using active crossovers is good but I think his design methodology is not. I don't agree with using restance in the output to adjust the roll off of the driver as this reduces the available damping of the back EMF. I would either design the box the right size for the response I wanted in the first place or use a electronic filter to adjust the response. ... Designing good passive crossovers is very diffciult. There may only be a few components but just about every component intereacts with all the others in poorly predictable ways (this includes the speaker drive units). So none of the variables are independant, this make it difficult to tune. Due to the interaction of the speakers inductance with the crossover changing values somtimes has very different affects to what you are expecting if you think of it as a resistor. |
|
|
|
Flewis 01-08-2007 at 08:40:57 PM Ok, lets apply some science: It is true that copper conducts heat better, higher Cp value (as mentioned by someone else) but no-one has mentioned the specific heat capacities (SHC). The SHC is how much energy one kilogram of substance can absorb to raise it by 1 degree. Copper has a SHC of 0.31 KJ/Kg/K Aluminium has a SHC of 0.91KJ/Kg/K (more than double!) This means that for the same weight of metal Aluminium contains twice as much energy which means it can transfer more energy to the air that passes over it thus keep the processor cooler. An ideal heatsink i would think is one that has copper nearest to the cpu to transfer the heat away quickly (copper heat pipes) but then changes to aluminium to gain highest transfer of heat to the air (big aluminium fins). Aluminium is also less dense which means that it can have the same surface area as copper and will weigh less. Higher surface area=more heat transfer. I think this should clarify the issue. (I am a chemistry student at oxford university btw) JMecc 01-08-2007 at 09:10:39 PM A key thing you have to remember is that this is all in STEADY-STATE: 1) One material absorbing heat into itself better than another means the cpu will stay colder when you first start up but in general operation the temperature in a given spot on the heat sink remains the same over time. i.e. don't count on copper's specific heat capacity to absorb your cpu's heat while you use it, the copper instead has to transport the heat to the fins where it is dissipated by the cooler air. 2) The heat drawn away from the cpu is at the exact same rate as the heat drawn away from the fins by the air (conservation of energy for steady-state systems means conservation of power). I calculated this for a friend a few years ago and it is very design-dependent, but generally copper will be 5-10% better than aluminum for the same design. So CU is better, just not that much. If you want to get into a real sciencish discussion of how aheatsink should be designed, PM hotfoot. Jo Edit: I should also say that the transfer to air is the hardest part since both Cu & Al have very high conductivity, so even though Cu's conductivity is better than Al's by a decent amount (~69%), it does not translate into much extra heat dissipation. Designing a better shape, larger heatsink, thinner fins, better airflow though it are much much more important than Cu vs Al. -- http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/...opper-aluminum |
| Material | Conductivity (W/m*K) | Density (g/cm(3) |
| Aluminum | 247 | 2.71 |
| Aluminum (6061) | 171 | 2.6-2.9 |
| Aluminum (6063) | 193 | 2.6-2.9 |
| Aluminum (7075-T6) | 130 | 2.6-2.9 |
| Brass (70Cu-30Zn) | 115 | n/a |
| Copper | 398 | |
| Gold | 315 | 19.32 |
| Magnesium | 170 | 1.74 |
| Magnesium alloy ZK60A | 117 | 1.74-1.87 |
| Silver | 428 | 10.49 |
| Tungsten | 178 | 19.3 |
| Zinc | 113 | 7.13 |
| Diamond | 2500 | 3.51 |
| Graphite | 25-470 | 1.3-1.95 |
| Silicon | 141 | 2.33 |
| Epoxy | 0.19 | 1.11-1.4 |
| Anodize coating | 7 | n/a |
| Air (not moving) | 0.026 | n/a |
| Mica | 0.7 | n/a |
| Berquist sil-pad 2000 | 3.5 | n/a |
| Berquist sil-pad k-10 | 1.3 | n/a |
| Berquist sil-pad 400 | 0.9 | n/a |
| Grey thermal compound (AOS52031) | 2.51 | n/a |
| White thermal compound (AOS52022) | 0.7 | n/a |
| Solder (63Sn-37Pb) | 50 | n/a |
|
| Page Tools |
| Search this Page |
Posting Rules
|
| New To Site? | Need Help? |