Conversion efficiency, I will remember that. Yes, a paradox it seems. That 1000mW and 62.5mW just doesn't look right, but when understood, it does. I think that is what Jan can't get his head around? Only he could say and I will not be guilty of putting words in his mouth.
Chris, keep in mind that I asked for the answer in mm and yes you got there by saying 1/4 or 4:1 and like that - so remember I told you that you were close, and in the end said that you had. A quarter of 8mm = 2mm.
The Conversion efficiency 'gain' is 6dB with four drivers, 3dB with two drivers (both when they are in parallel or series, you get 3dB, since in series you halve the input power).
In the example I gave re crossover, two drivers are sharing at 50% at the crossover frequency, so you get 3dB gain due to power (being electrically in parallel) and another 3dB the conversion efficiency 'gain' and it appears as 6dB and sums flat. If the two drivers are not -6dB, you would get a bump upwards in the summed response.
Thanks for being a good sport.
Cheers, Joe
Coupling to the air impedance is the limiting factor.
Increasing the number of drivers comes with diminishing returns in that coupling.
jn
Certainly, and because you can't make the drivers occupy the same space, the wavelengths will become too long. And can you get anywhere near 100%, I doubt that. Many limiting factors. But 6dB and a quarter of the excursion with lower motor induced distortions, nothing to sneeze at, and then crossovers that are more stable too, if they are passive.
Joe
All this is more or less beginner knowledge or something there are typical 5 different free calculators/simulators on the net. How about dispersion/directivity. This is where there still is something to achieve and which seem to matter a great deal. The knowledge bar is constantly moving upwards - what impressed people 15 years ago is now the "entrance ticket". Design has moved from being able to calculate a bass reflex box with paper and pen (remembering the equations by hart) to having a more holistic view on reproduction and understanding the speaker role in a system taking the room into consideration.
//
//
Acoustic dispersion is not the coverage angle. One of the most common things people mistake.
Acoustic dispersion - Wikipedia
Without dispersion a prism would not work.
Acoustic dispersion - Wikipedia
Without dispersion a prism would not work.
I use a transparent background in those situations.
(I think transparency in avatars needs to be turned on yet on the new software, all in good time)
(I think transparency in avatars needs to be turned on yet on the new software, all in good time)
You can use word processor like keyboard strokes.
My Avatar makes me look chinless, "not happy, Jan."
My Avatar makes me look chinless, "not happy, Jan."
Generally speaking, adjustments are under consideration. You can add feedback in the forum problems area.
In the mean time Joe, may I suggest you "pillarbox" your avatar to make it square.
In the mean time Joe, may I suggest you "pillarbox" your avatar to make it square.
yes, transparent backgrounds/alpha channels on the old version forum were not clean enough. you only have the option of a very high contrast channel and as a result I avoid it here and use superior antialiasing in photoshop, blended and matched to the hex colour used in the background. i'll try it again here with the new forum and see how it goes. no more alternating cell colours, so it will match all the time, not just half the time 🙂
basically you still ended up with jaggies
basically you still ended up with jaggies
Oh, just so you know Joe, I was probably just as irritated with Inspector Gadget growing up too. I am of that vintage; its very much tongue in cheek.
Joes is exhibiting the issue still that stopped me on the old forum I think. its very slight and depends on the image, but it causes very light artefacts in the transparency. at least on my monitor you can still see the background, its like it doesn't sample correctly, or uses a little bit different colour space to what the forum layout is.