YOUR source for About
|
Paul’s Blog
|
"Replacement"
speakers in 2.936 cu. ft. box |
||
Speaker A (dB) |
Speaker B (dB) |
Frequency (hz) |
-17.12 |
-11.03 |
20 |
-13.34 |
-5.96 |
25 |
-9.93 |
-2.30 |
30 |
-6.71 |
+0.01 |
35 |
-3.60 |
+1.17 |
40 |
-0.57 |
+1.58 |
45 |
+2.37 |
+1.63 |
50 |
+5.02 |
+1.53 |
55 |
+6.91 |
+1.39 |
60 |
+7.63 |
+1.24 |
65 |
+7.38 |
+1.11 |
70 |
+6.68 |
+0.99 |
75 |
+5.91 |
+0.88 |
80 |
+4.59 |
+0.71 |
90 |
+3.63 |
+0.59 |
100 |
+2.94 |
+0.49 |
110 |
+2.22 |
+0.38 |
125 |
+1.50 |
+0.27 |
150 |
+1.09 |
+0.20 |
175 |
+0.82 |
+0.15 |
200 |
Okay, back to our reverse engineering. Speaker A (on the left) is the speaker
that Chris would have chosen and speaker B is my choice. These measurements are based on a cabinet size of 2.936 cubic feet. As you
can see, speaker B has a much flatter response over the entire range with the
highest peak being only 1.63 dB (1.45 times as loud as the nominal 0 dB
level). Speaker A has a BIG hump in the response from 50 hertz to 110 hertz
resulting in a peak of 7.63 dB (5.79 times as loud as the nominal level) at
65 hertz. This means that the "C" note two
octaves below middle C (65.41 hertz) will be more than 6.6 times as loud as the
"F" note below it (43.65 hertz) if both notes are played at the
same level by the musician. Recording engineers would not tolerate this and
neither should you. People perceive this as "boomy"
or "muddy" bass. NOTE: In case you didn't follow, I used the level
of -0.57 dB at 45 hertz (the closest to F) to get the peak of 8.2 dB. Since we are dealing only with box tuning, our chart
stops at 200 hz. Frequencies above 200 hertz
directly radiate from the speaker cone and do not use the box for
reinforcement.
The f3
point (frequency at which woofer response has dropped by 3 dB and
starts its natural rolloff) of speaker A is 44.71
hertz even though the speaker's resonant
frequency (Fs) is
listed as 21.5 hertz. This shows you that a
published spec and how deep a speaker will get in your cabinet are
often two different things. Speaker B doesn't hit the 3 dB drop until 29.98
hertz. At 35 hertz, speaker B is 6.72 dB (4.69 times) louder than speaker A
and at the critical, audiophile surround sound subwoofer earthquake jumbo low
frequency of 20 hertz (my definition), it is a whopping 6.09 dB or 4.06 times
louder than speaker A.
Pretty impressive, huh? You should already be able to see that speaker A
has no earthly business being anywhere near our
cabinet. To make things more interesting, there are a few
parameters that the chart does not take into account. The deciBels listed on this chart are relative values to
determine how flat the frequency response is in the cabinet. These are not the dB SPL values that we mentioned with the jet.
Speaker A will produce a sound pressure level of 89 dB (with one watt
measured at one meter) versus speaker B's efficiency of 90.16. This makes
speaker B 1.16 dB or 1.3 times (30%) louder than speaker A across the
entire frequency range. Our new scaled value at
20 hertz would make speaker B 7.25 dB or 5.3 times the loudness level of
speaker A at this critical frequency! This means that if speaker B is
reproducing a 20 hertz tone at its rated power of 80
watts (109 dB SPL) that speaker
A would need an amplifier power of over 400 watts to produce the same sound!
The problem here, of course, is that speaker A will blow up at 50 watts!
Speaker A only has a 1.5 inch diameter voice coil
versus speaker B's 2 inch (bigger size = more heat dissipation = more power
handling) coil. Speaker B only cost Chris $10 more than speaker A would have.
Of course, I designed a crossover and sold him mids
and tweeters (matched to the woofer's efficiency). His verdict: THESE
SPEAKERS NOW SOUND AS GOOD AS HIS JBL STUDIO MONITORS.
The above chart was in no way meant
to demean the quality of replacement speaker A. This is done purely to point
out the idiotic way in which some companies strive to get your hard earned money. Oh, it would be VERY nice to have such
a thing as a general replacement loudspeaker but Father Physics won't allow
them under his roof. I estimate your chance of getting any replacement
speaker to sound as good as your original did is about one
in thirty. The odds increase when you also have to match woofer
efficiency to your other drivers --- not to mention that you'll have to
replace BOTH speakers to retain stereo imaging. In addition, you'll only get
a ninety day warranty and there is the chance that
you might destroy them by adding too much bass to compensate for an untuned box!
Anyway, what I would like to point out is that if you
were designing your own system and let the computer tell you how big of a
cabinet to make, speaker A may be a great choice for your system. To give
speaker A a chance at redemption, table 2 contains optimum box enclosure frequency graphs based on the same
published T-S parameters as above. In this case, it looks like speaker A wins
at 20 hertz by being 3.36 dB (or 2.16 times ) louder
(scaled). Please note, however, that speaker A needs an 80 cubic foot box (a
cube of 4.3 feet per side --- or the volume of almost six stoves!) while
speaker B needs only 5.88 cubic feet ( a cube of 1.8 feet per side) to
perform optimally. The power handling and efficiency of each speaker has not
changed.
above
speakers in optimum boxes |
||
Speaker A (dB) |
Speaker B (dB) |
Frequency (hz) |
+0.05 |
-4.52 |
20 |
+0.49 |
-1.35 |
25 |
+0.70 |
-0.43 |
30 |
+0.73 |
-0.19 |
35 |
+0.68 |
-0.12 |
40 |
+0.61 |
-0.10 |
45 |
+0.53 |
-0.09 |
50 |
+0.47 |
-0.08 |
55 |
+0.41 |
-0.07 |
60 |
+0.36 |
-0.07 |
65 |
+0.32 |
-0.06 |
70 |
+0.28 |
-0.06 |
75 |
+0.25 |
-0.05 |
80 |
+0.20 |
-0.04 |
90 |
+0.17 |
-0.04 |
100 |
+0.14 |
-0.03 |
110 |
+0.11 |
-0.02 |
125 |
+0.08 |
-0.02 |
150 |
+0.06 |
-0.01 |
175 |
+0.04 |
-0.01 |
200 |
Return to Speaker Design Page
Return to Replacement Driver Page
Return to NeviSonics Home Page
Last
updated 12/17/2012
Page maintained by Raven
Arts
Copyright NeviSonics 1995-2012©