I think that excluding magnetodynamics, plasma, electrostatic and CD all the others that remain are planars, AMTs and ribbons, have I listed them all or have I left out some?.
is there anyone who would be kind enough to explain to me briefly
what are the differences between planar AMT and ribbon?
For example, some things come to mind:
placement in the room, reproducible frequency limits, distortion level, SPL level etc. etc.
for example which of these distorts less?
which of these can be placed against the wall?
is there a link on the net that makes a comparison and describes the differences?
is there anyone who would be kind enough to explain to me briefly
what are the differences between planar AMT and ribbon?
For example, some things come to mind:
placement in the room, reproducible frequency limits, distortion level, SPL level etc. etc.
for example which of these distorts less?
which of these can be placed against the wall?
is there a link on the net that makes a comparison and describes the differences?
To paraphrase your question (apologies if this is not PC): there are white, black, yellow and brown people. Can someone explain what the differences are in how they play chess? Do some move quickly and other contemplate their moves for hours? Does it matter if their chess set is on timber or marble? What about if the pieces are ivory or plastic? How do I know what the colour is of the person who will win a game?
Planar and ribbon are similar in function, but a ribbon diaphragm is normally a very thin metal foil only in a corrugated or sheet form. Physically small ribbons tend to have very low resistance, so are often used with a transformer to present a reasonable impedance to the amplifier.
Planars typically have a plastic diaphragm with a long and narrow conductive trace pattern on them. This makes them higher resistance/impedance, so they can be directly driven by an amplifier.
AMTs typically use a pleated plastic diaphragm with conductive traces. These are normally lengthy, so can be made a standard impedance. The diaphragm motion here is different than the other two (similar to an accordion with one side open). Magnetic circuits tend to be specific to AMTs.
The rest of your questions are harder to answer. There have been good and bad versions of each on the market, so you can't really say that one is superior to the others. There are designs that are tweeter only and ones that are midrange/tweeter. Planars can be full range, but ribbons and AMTs aren't normally.
There have also been open and closed back versions of most of them. That is a bigger factor in how close the speaker can be to the back wall. Anything open back tends to like some breathing room behind it. Closed back, it's irrelevant.
well done mattstat, well done
its a general knowledge, but its ok to repeat it
and there are piezo tweeters, those ear piercing pa/disco style cheap motorola knock offs from grs and goldwood
its a general knowledge, but its ok to repeat it
and there are piezo tweeters, those ear piercing pa/disco style cheap motorola knock offs from grs and goldwood
Perhaps with piezo, but having a diaphragm that can be fed to a horn gives them a way to be compared to other drivers. arivel asks an important question in whether they can be put against a wall. Some drivers are usually built in dipole form, for example.
At the link, a few ribbons and planars tested along with a dome. Demonstrates performance variability with similar designs.
Zaph|Audio
Zaph|Audio
I fastly wondered if it was necessary to mask dogs involved in a blind test for super tweeters playing above 20 K hz ????
For the op : question is hard as so many factors comes into the ballparks when it comes to find the golden balls for a mature sound. It deserves a book and at least are between the lines of many loudspeakers books.
ESL are said better for micro dynamic but sound is also macro dynamik while the reccordings is the important factor as well ! ,Oh and the geometrical 3D interface between the transducter and the air, the room, average listening level, etc.
others planars seems a compromise having worse of both ESL and dynamik speakers, of course it's an illustration and it's not that simple.
Filter comes into the equation : you don't filter the same a ribbon, an esl, a tweeter, you even don't amp the same.
The whole is important at the end as all is about trade offs and a simple question as which is the best is not as easy than if it was to just pick the best solution on a shelf.
It's an equilibriulm whole you listen to and the proof is in the pudding, knowing that many puddings can be good !
Duno if that helps.
For the op : question is hard as so many factors comes into the ballparks when it comes to find the golden balls for a mature sound. It deserves a book and at least are between the lines of many loudspeakers books.
ESL are said better for micro dynamic but sound is also macro dynamik while the reccordings is the important factor as well ! ,Oh and the geometrical 3D interface between the transducter and the air, the room, average listening level, etc.
others planars seems a compromise having worse of both ESL and dynamik speakers, of course it's an illustration and it's not that simple.
Filter comes into the equation : you don't filter the same a ribbon, an esl, a tweeter, you even don't amp the same.
The whole is important at the end as all is about trade offs and a simple question as which is the best is not as easy than if it was to just pick the best solution on a shelf.
It's an equilibriulm whole you listen to and the proof is in the pudding, knowing that many puddings can be good !
Duno if that helps.
I found this that might be of interest to the reader
https://faculty.uml.edu//pchowdhury/95.164/Project-info/Below-average-report.pdf
https://faculty.uml.edu//pchowdhury/95.164/Project-info/Below-average-report.pdf
Air is light. The essential question is how gross is the mechanism that moves the air. The ordinary cone driver has a massive cone assembly that is heavy - and that's a just plain stupid way* to move the air. The "alternate" drivers are pretty much the opposite.
There are a few drivers that are hard to place on that bifurcation because they have proportionally massive force moving the thing that moves the air (ribbon drivers), the thing doing the moving is exceedingly light (silk domes), or there is a transformation between the driver and the air (AKA a horn).
B.
* those inclined to math will understand I mean that cone drivers are an "inelegant" solution which is the kind of stuff mathematicians hate, even when not otherwise faulty
There are a few drivers that are hard to place on that bifurcation because they have proportionally massive force moving the thing that moves the air (ribbon drivers), the thing doing the moving is exceedingly light (silk domes), or there is a transformation between the driver and the air (AKA a horn).
B.
* those inclined to math will understand I mean that cone drivers are an "inelegant" solution which is the kind of stuff mathematicians hate, even when not otherwise faulty
Last edited:
While there may be numerous benefits to alternative drivers, are you saying mass will prevent getting good sound?
Because of the mismatch of mechanical impedance between light air and heavy electromagnetic transducers, the energy transformation from electrical to acoustical is very inefficient, typically 0.5 - 5% or so.
The rest of the power from the amplifier ends up as heat in the voice coil. All things being equal, more linear drivers are typically less efficient. In other words, there is a design trade off between quality and quantity.
The rest of the power from the amplifier ends up as heat in the voice coil. All things being equal, more linear drivers are typically less efficient. In other words, there is a design trade off between quality and quantity.
What numbers do you have on the linearity of efficient drivers? I hadn't noticed they were a problem.
At any rate going back to the previous issue, when there is more mass, there can also be a stronger motor to go with it.
At any rate going back to the previous issue, when there is more mass, there can also be a stronger motor to go with it.
Linearity / efficiency comes back to physics. Take a voice coil in a magnet pole. If you want the greatest efficiency you put all of the coil between the poles, but then when the cone moves the coil starts to exit the pole pieces and the force factor (BL) falls off. On the other hand if you want the greatest linearity, the coil extends past the pole in both directions so the the position of the cone does not modulate the force factor, but then only the part of the coil in the pole gap is doing work, the rest is just wasting energy.
The non-linearity of the force factor of an electromagnetic drive is the reason behind the typical 'S' shaped relationship between coil current and cone displacement. More efficient drivers have a larger more rounded 'S' with a small or non-existent linear region, whereas less efficient ones have a lower flatter 'S' curve with a large linear region in the middle.
Of course this comparison is true when other parameters are held constant, same number of voice coil turns, same size pole gap, same magnet, same field strength in gap, i.e. same cost and compleity of manufacture.
The non-linearity of the force factor of an electromagnetic drive is the reason behind the typical 'S' shaped relationship between coil current and cone displacement. More efficient drivers have a larger more rounded 'S' with a small or non-existent linear region, whereas less efficient ones have a lower flatter 'S' curve with a large linear region in the middle.
Of course this comparison is true when other parameters are held constant, same number of voice coil turns, same size pole gap, same magnet, same field strength in gap, i.e. same cost and compleity of manufacture.
Are you trying to say that it is near impossible to make a practical efficient driver? I'd call nope for applying absolutes in this situation. Refer to the original question.
I was saying what I said, which is that efficiency is traded off against linearity; more of one means less of the other, unless you throw more engineering $$$ at the solution.
Some designers might be cleverer than others and get more bang for their engineering bucks and their products are worth seeking out.
I am not sure who's original question you are referring to. The premise of the thread is about generalities as are my posts.
Engineering addresses performance when things go right and errors of the Klippel sort, as discussed in the previous good posts.
But only feedback correction addresses non-Klippelable errors.*
In audio, I can (for the moment) think of only two forms of feedback. There is air-spring in sealed enclosures and there is naturally damping when the driver is of the alternate source.
B.
* An example of a Klippelable error are rubber surrounds which depart from linearity due to their shape. So through better engineering, we can make better surrounds using better geometry. Non-Klippel errors are those we can't anticipate.
But only feedback correction addresses non-Klippelable errors.*
In audio, I can (for the moment) think of only two forms of feedback. There is air-spring in sealed enclosures and there is naturally damping when the driver is of the alternate source.
B.
* An example of a Klippelable error are rubber surrounds which depart from linearity due to their shape. So through better engineering, we can make better surrounds using better geometry. Non-Klippel errors are those we can't anticipate.
Last edited: