Speaker Efficiency
- Thread starter cm961
- Start date
- Status
Pete,
10 times the power gets you 10 more decibels, so since 100 watts is 10 x 10 x 1 watt, you should be +20 decibels.
This assumes perfect linearity, which you will not achieve, so your real world result will be less than this due to compression and losses. I don't know how much you could expect to lose, it would vary with the driver.
Cheers, Dan
10 times the power gets you 10 more decibels, so since 100 watts is 10 x 10 x 1 watt, you should be +20 decibels.
This assumes perfect linearity, which you will not achieve, so your real world result will be less than this due to compression and losses. I don't know how much you could expect to lose, it would vary with the driver.
Cheers, Dan
If you want to know the max spl in a room with reflective walls the result will be quite different from the ideal case of infinite baffel in an anechoic space.
It will depend on the room dimensions, frequency, etc.
There is no easy way to arrive at a specific answer. I think there are some software simulation packages that can give you an answer to this sort of problem, assuming the room is simple enough.
MR
It will depend on the room dimensions, frequency, etc.
There is no easy way to arrive at a specific answer. I think there are some software simulation packages that can give you an answer to this sort of problem, assuming the room is simple enough.
MR
SPLs of room interaction
Theoretically (which NEVER happens), each "close proximity" room boundary such as walls and floors will add 3dB to the sound level. This is why corner loading your subwoofer can add up to 9dB to response in the 20-40Hz region. However, reflections from walls and other objects will cause the sound wave to interact. The results of the interactions will nodes and antinodes, some will increase your SPL while others will decrease your SPls.
Have a look at the Room Mode Calculator and plug in your room dimensions. The basic idea is that you don't want the room modes (given in Hz) to be too close to one another. You want to seem them fairly evenly spread out rather than be "clumped" together.
To more directly answer your question, each time you double your speaker input power, you add 3dB to the SPL:
If 1 watt at 1 meter = 90 dB, then
2 watts at 1 meter = 93 dB, and
4 watts at 1 meter = 96 dB... just keep adding 3 dB. The final results are, of course, subject to the limitations indicated above.
Hope this helps! Eric
Theoretically (which NEVER happens), each "close proximity" room boundary such as walls and floors will add 3dB to the sound level. This is why corner loading your subwoofer can add up to 9dB to response in the 20-40Hz region. However, reflections from walls and other objects will cause the sound wave to interact. The results of the interactions will nodes and antinodes, some will increase your SPL while others will decrease your SPls.
Have a look at the Room Mode Calculator and plug in your room dimensions. The basic idea is that you don't want the room modes (given in Hz) to be too close to one another. You want to seem them fairly evenly spread out rather than be "clumped" together.
To more directly answer your question, each time you double your speaker input power, you add 3dB to the SPL:
If 1 watt at 1 meter = 90 dB, then
2 watts at 1 meter = 93 dB, and
4 watts at 1 meter = 96 dB... just keep adding 3 dB. The final results are, of course, subject to the limitations indicated above.
Hope this helps! Eric
Eric said:My mistake, I stand corrected.
Not entirely, while it is correct that in theory, each boundaery add 6 db, that only works if the point of origin of the sound is an infininetely small point placed directly in/on those boundaeries.
The effect in RL measurements varies depending on frequency between a 0 db and 6 db increase.
Eric, sorry to correct you so publicly. Re reading my post, I hope I didn't come over as rude, it was not my intention.
Aggemam, I did carefully qualify my statement by saying low frequencies, and boundary reinforcement is by definition reinforcement by a boundary, not a "near" boundary!
One has to be very careful on a forum such as this to make clear the conditions that apply to statements being made. They are open to misinterpretation due to either being inconcise when making statements, or being misinterpreted when read. At least it can lead to lively discussion!
Regards
Andrew
Aggemam, I did carefully qualify my statement by saying low frequencies, and boundary reinforcement is by definition reinforcement by a boundary, not a "near" boundary!
One has to be very careful on a forum such as this to make clear the conditions that apply to statements being made. They are open to misinterpretation due to either being inconcise when making statements, or being misinterpreted when read. At least it can lead to lively discussion!
Regards
Andrew
- Status