| Author | Topic |
|---|
Registered:
March 2005
|
|
tweeters?
|
Fri, 28 October 2005 13:44
|
 |
Just wondering where it is optimal for sound quality to place tweeters. I keep on gettin conlficting information. Some say no more than 6" from the woofer, others say on the sail pannels or the apilar.
THe only consistant thing i can find out about placement, is that they shouldnt be aimed directly at your head but raked in towards the dpme light.
Any sugestions?
|
|
|
Location:
Toowoomba
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: tweeters?
|
Fri, 28 October 2005 16:23
|
|
|
the shorter the wave length the faster the sound travels (tweeters fast, subs slow) you should try and get the, to all hit your ear at the same time so tweets in the kicks and mids in the bottom front of the doors. And yes 6" is a good guide for distance from the mids other wise you get sepertion if an instrument outputs a frequency that covers the mids and tweets. A-pillar is a no no. It hurts. But really you probably wouldn't notice too much if the pods are made incorrectly, the doors are not sound proof (as well as the rest of the car to prevent background noise) and if the equipment produces poor quality sound. A good site used to be www.caraudioaustralia.com.au (I think) but last time I was over that way they were overrun by 14yo's who had no idea what so ever and finding someone on there who new there stuff was very difficult.
|
|
|
Location:
1st street on the right
Registered:
November 2002
|
|
Re: tweeters?
|
Fri, 28 October 2005 23:28
|
|
Use your ears and blue tack.
Place them in various positions and see what works best. Don't rule out some places just because it's a no no for some. Not having a go at anyone, just some things work in some cars that don't work in others. Use the music you like. Play it at full range, no adjustment to bass/treble or Eq adjustments. Try to select music that has full range frequencies too as you can decide on how it sounds if it's not playing.
The only thing I don't agree with is the theory that if you place tweeters lower than mids/bass drivers is that it can "lift" the sound position.
|
|
|
Registered:
March 2005
|
|
Re: tweeters?
|
Sat, 29 October 2005 00:34
|
|
ok cool, but i dont see how one wave length is going travel faster in air than another. I can see how the frequncy will be differnt, but not the speed of sound.
Yeah i guess i'll be using the blue tack idea. I was thinking though to put them in the doors close to the woofers but have more of an angle on them directed to the middle of the car.
Thanks for your input.
|
|
|
Location:
Toowoomba
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: tweeters?
|
Sat, 29 October 2005 01:40
|
|
| Quote: |
Don't rule out some places just because it's a no no for some.
|
True, try as many places as you can around the front of the doors and in the kicks. My personal experience has taught me not to go above the dash as the tweets are then too close to you and hurt like hell and they will stand out alot over the rest of the music. Try them there and you will see what I mean.
| Quote: |
The only thing I don't agree with is the theory that if you place tweeters lower than mids/bass drivers is that it can "lift" the sound position
|
No I don't agree with this theory either. Probably one of the nicest sounding car stereos I heard was in a supra, he had 3 sets of splits in the dash (left, right and center) pointed at the windscreen. This gave more distance from the speaker to the driver and perfect stage height because the sound was coming through the windscreen (right where you are looking).
As for angling yes point your tweets at the dome lightish sort of area, you will have to play about to get a nice angle. Mids don't need quite as much angle as they have a wider target (for want of a better word) and subs can pretty much go anywhere in car. It's too difficult and has too little benefit to go playing around with positioning subs. I suppose the best guide is to have a good box and point them in such a way as to give them the longest path until the sound would hit something (for SQ).
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Frankston, Victoria
Registered:
April 2004
|
|
|
Location:
Gawler
Registered:
May 2005
|
|
Re: tweeters?
|
Sun, 30 October 2005 10:59
|
|
In my torrana i had a simple but effective setup.
two 6x9's in the front doors
Two 6x9's in the parcel shelf.
This gave me plenty of sound with a large range but i dont listen to music with a large range (heavy metal and what not) im sure i will get some dissagreement but this worked for what i wanted and my budget.
Sam.
|
|
|
Location:
Toowoomba
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: tweeters?
|
Sun, 30 October 2005 11:18
|
|
| sagluren wrote on Sun, 30 October 2005 21:59 |
In my torrana i had a simple but effective setup.
two 6x9's in the front doors
Two 6x9's in the parcel shelf.
This gave me plenty of sound with a large range but i dont listen to music with a large range (heavy metal and what not) im sure i will get some dissagreement but this worked for what i wanted and my budget.
Sam.
|
And that's the most important thing. No point spending $10,000 on a stereo if a $20 radio on the front seat will suit your needs.
And you won't be happy spending $20 if you are an audiophile.
The best thing to do is listen to lots of different equipment and lots of different installs and pick what you like.
|
|
|
Location:
Bundaberg, Qld.
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: tweeters?
|
Sun, 30 October 2005 11:52
|
|
in the aw11 like my tweeters down low on the door pods or kicks on axis pointing towards each oppisite rear corner of the cabin/persons head. once got a prity good center channel having them on the front side of the rear view mirror facing the windscreen.. 
most comp installs i did over the years when i was doing it was tweets in conjunction with the woofer, but then once mounted the tweets up in the sills of a skyline in a basic system then won every round in it's class. wierd
|
|
|
Location:
eastern suburbs, melbourne
Registered:
March 2005
|
|
Re: tweeters?
|
Sun, 30 October 2005 14:30
|
|
ive found that it dont matter where u put them, as long as the tweeters are pointing at your ears. cos its a directional sound, unlike base.
if you look at where the tweeters are in good/luxury cars, its always pointing towards your head.
|
|
|
Location:
Penrith
Registered:
February 2005
|
|
Re: tweeters?
|
Sun, 30 October 2005 23:24
|
|
Big Rob, frequency is just another word for the speed of the sound wave, shorter or higher frequencies travel at a proportionally faster speed than lower frequencies.
illuminatus- don't pay too much attention to where 'luxury' cars have their speakers as they are placed for convenience, cost and looks. They sometimes don't even have tweeters behind the speaker grills, some are just for looks.
Keep your tweeters close to your drivers, always use a cross over and face them towards the center of the cabin.
|
|
|
Registered:
March 2005
|
|
Re: tweeters?
|
Sun, 30 October 2005 23:29
|
|
I know what frequency means lol. Eg Hz, cycles pre second etc.
I understand that with a shorter wave length you will have a HIGHER frequency but that does not mean that it will travel faster than a bass frequency. The speed of sound in air is roughly fixed, it can be considered a constant that is dependent on air temeperature and pressure etc.
What will happen though is that you will hear more cycles of the shorter wave length than the larger ones etc.
|
|
|
Location:
Kellyville, Sydney
Registered:
June 2004
|
|
Re: tweeters?
|
Mon, 31 October 2005 00:12
|
|
| Kurt.R wrote on Mon, 31 October 2005 10:24 |
frequency is just another word for the speed of the sound wave
|
ummmm no.
speed of a wave does not depend on its frequency.
the frequency effects interference phenomenon such as diffraction refraction.
if i had to guess the delay between hearing tweeters and hearing sub is caused by some internal delay in the amplifier.
chris
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
July 2005
|
|
Re: tweeters?
|
Mon, 31 October 2005 02:25
|
|
| Kurt.R wrote on Mon, 31 October 2005 10:24 |
Big Rob, frequency is just another word for the speed of the sound wave, shorter or higher frequencies travel at a proportionally faster speed than lower frequencies.
|
Careful what you say. Anyone with a basic physics knowledge will crucify that mate.
Velocity of waveform depends on what the wave is (sound, light, elec???) and what is the medium (whats it goin thru). Thats it.
Freqency is the number of cycles that pass a given point in one second (Hz)
The height of these cycles is called amplitude. This correlates to intensity or volume. (Bear in mind that drawing an up & down line of a sound wave is a bit misleading when you try to explain to someone that sound is a compression waveform)
At a given amplitude a high frequency tone will heard louder, or is more intense to the ear. A lower frequency tone has better reverberation and penetration properties.
Hence alarms are high pitched, and bass goes doof doof through anything.
|
|
|
Registered:
March 2005
|
|
Re: tweeters?
|
Mon, 31 October 2005 04:21
|
|
exactly like i pointed out earlier. Also the ear is more suseptable to differnt frequencies. I.e. the ear is very sensitive to all the frequencies in human speech etc.
Have a read on the internet, as this is like yr11 physics.
|
|
|
Registered:
March 2005
|
|
Re: tweeters?
|
Mon, 31 October 2005 04:24
|
|
exactly like i pointed out earlier. Also the ear is more suseptable to differnt frequencies. I.e. the ear is very sensitive to all the frequencies in human speech etc.
Have a read on the internet, as this is like yr11 physics.
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney, OZ
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: tweeters?
|
Tue, 01 November 2005 06:22
|
|
| Quote: |
Have a read on the internet, as this is like yr11 physics.
|
Well then you'll also know from your readings that lower frequecy waves have more energy, and therefore are not absorbed as much by the materials such as Fabrics an foam used in a cars interior. So, by putting them all the way down near your feet in a kick panel is Ok for 6" and above, but what about poor tweeter's? High fequency drives that produce a low powered wave? The sound needs to get past your feet,then your legs then the seat, body Dash.... By the time it get to your ears, well? There ain't much left. The rule for keeping them close to your woofers is because the speed of sound is constant, and this has come from speaker house enclsoure designs. Which yes I would have to say is optimium since all the frequencices from both speaker leave at the same time and will arrive at the same time, cause the speed of sound is fixed, and they have no objects absorbing there energies. Also putting them in the Kick panels is Ideal for a Competition system since there will be no body in the car and every is aimed at the SPL meter. For a daily driven car, well as I have said above is one thing and the other... what about when your pissed mates get in a kick the crap out of poor speakers that now fill the "Kick" panels? It gets expensive, no mater how Vigilant you are!
| Quote: |
Use your ears and blue tack.
|
That's the test... do it with a seated passager as well as they also have and impact on how things sound.
|
|
|
Location:
Kellyville, Sydney
Registered:
June 2004
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
July 2005
|
|
Re: tweeters?
|
Tue, 01 November 2005 08:26
|
|
Energy is proportional to AMPLITUDE!!!!
Bass (low Hz) needs to be produced at a higher amplitude to be heard "as we like" relative to treble (high Hz)
make sense!
Blue tack test is the best mate. You put shit how you like it at the end of the day! They're your fuggin ears arent they.
And by the way, putting them in the kickpanels is ideal for compettition (SPL) coz its easier than wiring em somewhere else. SPL comps are ONLY about <80Hz - doof doof baby. As far as SQ goes there is well... get to know the judge and find out what they like coz there are as many different "rules" out there as the are systems. Its popular theory to put tweeters with woofers for the reason Johhny said - equal distance to ear = minimal phasing issues.
|
|
|
Location:
Kellyville, Sydney
Registered:
June 2004
|
|
Re: tweeters?
|
Tue, 01 November 2005 09:07
|
|
| mic* wrote on Tue, 01 November 2005 19:26 |
Energy is proportional to AMPLITUDE!!!!
|
true, but that doesnt mean its not proportional to frequency as well.
|
|
|
Location:
brisbane
Registered:
September 2005
|
|
Re: tweeters?
|
Tue, 01 November 2005 11:44
|
|
ok behind all this technical bs i think the answer was
A. where u want them and sound best
B. for sound quality close to the subs
my suggestion:
in my ke70 sedan, 2 12" subs in the boot, 6" splits on rear shelf, and tweeter up on those panels above the shelf wateva they are called that the rear screen goes into. almost exact same distance from u to subs, and from u to tweeters. then i got 4 way 6*9 in bottom of the front doors where pocket thing for refidex used to be and high pass filter use these only for 3 tweeters as they are cheapos and sound shit with bass. can hardly hear them coz u cant direct them, just add a little bit really.
my 2c anyway
~andrew~
|
|
|
Location:
eastern suburbs, melbourne
Registered:
March 2005
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
July 2005
|
|
Re: tweeters?
|
Tue, 01 November 2005 22:26
|
|
The whole thread is just funny...
If you were an audiophile you wouldn be asking.
If you want a basic system, you do what you like. Sound is as personal a thing as your frilly undies.
End of story.
|
|
|
Registered:
March 2005
|
|
Re: tweeters?
|
Wed, 02 November 2005 00:15
|
|
|
what do you got against my frilly undies
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
July 2005
|
|
Re: tweeters?
|
Wed, 02 November 2005 00:28
|
|
| Big Rob wrote on Wed, 02 November 2005 11:15 |
what do you got against my frilly undies
|
I didn say i got anything against em. They're just personal. As long as you keep them frills personal then nothing will be held against them. Like a shotgun.
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney, OZ
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: tweeters?
|
Wed, 02 November 2005 01:38
|
|
| Quote: |
dude if you dont know what you are talking about then stop spreading bullshit. these forums are supposed to inform people not give them false and misleading information
|
Yeah, I do,-> a. I hold a Physics degree.
b. This is the kind of stuff that I taught
to first year uni students for three years.
As for bullshit, well I've been here and with this club since day one and have heard more bullshit than this thread!! and people need to be informed.
| Quote: |
EDIT: whoops wrong formula lol
|
.. it can happen.
| Quote: |
Bass (low Hz) needs to be produced at a higher amplitude
|
Amplitude is volume and yes it does play part in a waves energy. But what I'm talking about is two speakers at the same volume and hence same ampiltude, so the "Wave energy" and not the "electrical engergy" or any other fatcors, just the pure energy of the sound. Second point, put a piece of MDF in front a of tweeter and one infront of a bass drive, both cranking at 90db... You won't hear the any thing from the tweeter, but I'm sure the you'll still hear the bass! and what do you hear from outside a nightclub? BASS!! why? because all the high freqency waves have less energies and are absorbed, the low freqencies still have engergy and that's what you can hear/feel.Car a large syatem, windows shut doors closed....  Thirdly, conversation of energy, a good tweeter will never be rated at 300W RMS cause High frequecies at 90db doesn't need 300W of power to be made, High quality subs do, cause low freqencies have more engergy and need more energy to produce them.
| Quote: |
Johhny said - equal distance to ear = minimal phasing issues
|
Yeah, this is the thing... the Phasing issues are so bloody small that that the human ear can't tell the bloody difference in the short distances within a car's enviroment.... so small that it's measured in fractions of a millisecond, this
| Quote: |
both speaker leave at the same time and will arrive at the same time
|
is Phasing issue! So I think you need to learn a lot more. What about cross overs, and not the powered ones such as Audio control, etc, cause this can can be adjusted out on the really good ones, Just the Plain old Cap's and coils? These also cause a delay in the sound produced and create Phasing issues too, again, measured in fractions of milliseconds and again, the human ear can't tell. Even putting the speaker in in a slightly different offset in the location can cause this, so really a co-axial speaker is the best solution to phasing, since both speakers are in the same indentical place as where both sounds are produced and why they are not used in systems, another arguement... When I hear "phasing", I think to myself, "audiophile" crap. I was a very much and still am audiophile, more home rather than car's today. This is only jargon, like the word "Synergy" that is throwning around by marketing team would use just it to justify themselves by sounding intellegent. They only really get away with it becuase most people wouldn't have an idea what it means and it sound hip and cool!
| Quote: |
If you want a basic system, you do what you like. Sound is as personal a thing as your frilly undies.
|
So true, Just get the Blue tac out and choose!
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
December 2004
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
July 2005
|
|
Re: tweeters?
|
Wed, 02 November 2005 01:58
|
|
[quote title=Johnny wrote on Wed, 02 November 2005 12:38 So I think you need to learn a lot more.
[/quote]
I dunno if this was directed at me, but i think we have only been supporting each others statements rather than contradicting. The only thing you went into more depth on is the higher energy level or effective inertia of low waves, and the reletive high level of energy required for propogation thereof. I did/do not dispute this (as some other individual did and quickly retracted) I think i just shyed away from opening the door to conversation on acoustic theory coz the thread seems a lil bit lay for that.
...I said bass goes doof doof through anything, i thought that was appropriate for the general level of understanding...
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
July 2005
|
|
Re: tweeters?
|
Wed, 02 November 2005 02:05
|
|
| andurils_sheath wrote on Wed, 02 November 2005 12:56 |
The only real difference comes from the amplitude where sound gets louder and that low frequency sounds penetrate a refract more. Ie theyre more directional.
|
LESS directional. Because the penetrate and REVERBERATE more it becomes more difficult for the human ear to localise the source of the sound, hence LESS directional. Think about someones voice (higher Hz) and whether you can usually tell where it came from. Then think about sitting in your room with your eyes closed in a thunderstorm and pointing out the direction each boom came from. Id like to see you try.
|
|
|
Location:
Kellyville, Sydney
Registered:
June 2004
|
|
Re: tweeters?
|
Wed, 02 November 2005 02:09
|
|
holy crap. i can not believe you got a phys degree.
| Quote: |
Higher frequencies tend to be more 'directional' than lower frequencies. Higher frequencies have a higher average power for any given section of the wave, than lower frequency waves. This doesn't mean they are 'louder' or have a higher peak amplitude... it just means they have higher power.
Follow me along this thought experiment. I'll assume you are familiar with the 'wave' in a stadium, whereby a line of people stand up and sit down in succession. Imagine these people, instead of getting up and down, are getting up and down on a step. The speed that the wave goes around the stadium is dependent on how fast each individual person gets up, since the next person in line has to wait for the previous person to move.
Now, let's say on two different days, you have two different waves. To make a wave with higher frequency, that is, to make a wave that goes up down more times in one second, you need the people to stand up and down very fast. They would use a lot of energy to do it. If you wanted the wave to move slower, you would tell them to take their time getting up. They wouldn't spend much energy at all. The amplitude, or the height of the wave, is going to be determined by how high the step is... the power of the wave is how much energy the people have to expend to get up and down it a number of times in one minute or second, etc.
So. Low frequencies, because of the big distance between the peaks and troughs of the wave... tend to go 'around' objects that are in their way. That is, the wave can maintain it's shape and still bend. High frequencies are narrow, because of their higher power, and very tightly packed. They have the tendency to 'bounce' off of objects in their way. Foghorns have a very high amplitude, and a very very low frequency. That way they won't be blocked by ships or rocks in the water. It ALSO means that they tend to 'bend' along the curvature of the Earth.
|
from www.physlink.com
the reason you dont hear the high freq wave through the mdf is because it is reflected NOT absorbed.
tweeters need less energy because they are very directional, all the energy is pointed straight at your head.
subs need more because the waves spread out around the car (and around the neighbourhood depending on how much tosser you are) and so the proportion of thew waves that reaches your ears is low.
a lot of energy from subs is also lost as mechanical energy (making stuff vibrate)
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
July 2005
|
|
Re: tweeters?
|
Wed, 02 November 2005 02:37
|
|
energy is fucked up thing to talk about in sound
what rodney has posted is correct but really refers to sin wave (light, elec...) and less so to a compression wave (sound).
To create a compression wave something needs to be pushed then pulled back in our case a speaker cone. when this stroke is longer the wavelength increases & Hz decreases. The energy required to do this for a longer stroke is obvioulsy going to be greater as it moving something further (in a certain sense wavelength becomes the step rather than amplitude in your analogy). When the something (cone) has to be moved against magnets and the something is 20" wide and so on and so on the difference in energy required for propogation between high & low Hz becomes huge.
This thread is getting way off base - Big Rob pull down a few porno pics off ur wall, nick the bluetac and your fixed mate.
But i do enjoy the topic so without playing "my dicks bigger than yours" anyone who has an opinion / thoery / degree / sticker out of a cereal box... please share.
|
|
|
Location:
Kellyville, Sydney
Registered:
June 2004
|
|
Re: tweeters?
|
Wed, 02 November 2005 02:49
|
|
| mic* wrote on Wed, 02 November 2005 13:37 |
when this stroke is longer the wavelength increases & Hz decreases.
|
WRONG!
a longer stroke increases AMPLITUDE. you are howeever correct in saying that increasing the stroke increases energy.
sroke = amplitude
number of times back and forth per second = frequency
say you have a 6" speaker and you are going to play it at a fixed amplitude (stroke),
to play a very low frequency wave of say 100 hz the cone moves back and forth 100 times per second
now to play a high frequency sound say 10,000 hz the cone moves back and forth 10,000 times. so the cone travels 100 times as far to produce the HIGH frequency sound.
please explain how this uses less energy than the low frequency?
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
December 2004
|
|
Re: tweeters?
|
Wed, 02 November 2005 03:50
|
|
| mic* wrote on Wed, 02 November 2005 13:05 |
| andurils_sheath wrote on Wed, 02 November 2005 12:56 |
The only real difference comes from the amplitude where sound gets louder and that low frequency sounds penetrate a refract more. Ie theyre more directional.
|
LESS directional. Because the penetrate and REVERBERATE more it becomes more difficult for the human ear to localise the source of the sound, hence LESS directional. Think about someones voice (higher Hz) and whether you can usually tell where it came from. Then think about sitting in your room with your eyes closed in a thunderstorm and pointing out the direction each boom came from. Id like to see you try.
|
sorry tis what i meant. My bad. Too hot today to think straight
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney, OZ
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: tweeters?
|
Wed, 02 November 2005 05:34
|
|
| Quote: |
the reason you dont hear the high freq wave through the mdf is because it is reflected NOT absorbed.
|
I'm trying to keep it simplfied, by using simple words, yes there will be some reflection but No, we are talking about a compression waves, not a transverse waves, a whole diferent thing.Transverse wave will reflect a major of there energies, compression waves don't. The wave hits the MDF and stops on the other side since it needs to move that material ie compress it in order to pass through. The wave needs alot of energy to do this so most of energy dissipates or is "absorbed" in to it's surrounds and some of it will reflect. Bass will tend to pass through this and have some too reflection. MDF-> May I should say use a pillow which doesn't reflect! Anyhow From would your saying, we'd hear echo's... Reflected sound, unfortunately,this is not the purpose of the orignal statement,it was to prove what has more engergy, Low or high frequencies
| Quote: |
I dunno if this was directed at me,
|
No, so far your on track, it was for everyone
This get stranger too... has Momentum, by no mass,an acts like a wave and a particle... but it does stop when it hits a soild, non-transparent object, cause it hasn't got enough energy to pass through it....
| Quote: |
tweeters need less energy because they are very directional,
|
No, cause you even said it...
| Quote: |
a longer stroke increases AMPLITUDE. you are howeever correct in saying that increasing the stroke increases energy
|
Also to produce a high frequencies, you need to move things very fast, and to do that, things need light and therefore small. They are directional cause they don't have enough energy to move/compress the large amounts of air, only the bits directly infront of them. You don't and can't feel a tweeter shaking the crap out of your body do you?
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
July 2005
|
|
Re: tweeters?
|
Wed, 02 November 2005 06:08
|
|
[quote title=mynameisrodney wrote on Wed, 02 November 2005 13:49a longer stroke increases AMPLITUDE. you are howeever correct in saying that increasing the stroke increases energy.
sroke = amplitude
number of times back and forth per second = frequency
say you have a 6" speaker and you are going to play it at a fixed amplitude (stroke),
to play a very low frequency wave of say 100 hz the cone moves back and forth 100 times per second
now to play a high frequency sound say 10,000 hz the cone moves back and forth 10,000 times. so the cone travels 100 times as far to produce the HIGH frequency sound.
please explain how this uses less energy than the low frequency?[/quote]
Yeah you're right. I completely fucked myself up there. 100%
In need to read some more books again coz i am tryin to scrape together shit thats been wedged in the unsed section of my brain for about 5 years.
Anyway...
>Hz = >Energy in a perfect world. Sunlight for example is not affected by many factors really, and yes UV light is a higher in potential energy than IR. And simmilarly propogation of UV light rays requires a lot more energy than does IR.
Here tho we have electrical energy -> light energy
With sound we have electrical -> kinetic -> sound
That & speaker design is where the answer to your Q lies.
I know there is some kind of ideal relationship between wavelengths being generated (primarily) and the source they are coming from.
>wavelength = <Hz = >size cone?
A more simple explanation for my mind is, if you wana move a cone back and forth 20,000 times a second, it would wana be agile - ie small & light, and also not as high an amplitude is required for equal ear sensitivity. Therefore i think there's not a lot of kinetic energy required there. Whereas if you want a well controlled clean tone at 20Hz you want a larger heavier cone & magnet (conversly at > amplitude for = sensitivity) which will take much greater kinetic energy to produce.
Now i know, and im sure we all do, that bass sucks more electrical energy and that (above) i why i think it is so.
So, if physics says that a higher Hz has more energy - and it does - then why does producing low notes cost so much more energy?
Energy in = energy out right? You just get some loss to others forms such as heat etc...
Subs do produce more heat so they're less efficient, but understanding leads me to beleive the main reason is what i initially said
bass needs to be produced at a MUCH greater amplitude to be heard "as we/you/billy the goldfish likes it" than what treble does.
So at equal amplitude higher Hz = more enregy
BUT at an equal volume to the human ear higher Hz = less energy
Someone please now tell me the real reason... my head is fried 
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
July 2005
|
|
Re: tweeters?
|
Wed, 02 November 2005 06:10
|
|
The meaning of life i mean...
Please. 
|
|
|
Location:
Kellyville, Sydney
Registered:
June 2004
|
|
Re: tweeters?
|
Wed, 02 November 2005 06:10
|
|
so you are saying that tweeters are not directional
| Quote: |
Also to produce a high frequencies, you need to move things very fast, and to do that, things need light and therefore small
|
that is correct and the main reason why tweeter use less energy than subs, because of their size.
| Quote: |
They are directional cause they don't have enough energy to move/compress the large amounts of air
|
no they dont compress large amounts of air because they are low amplitude waves. you have lost me as to how this has anything to do with their directionality.
| Quote: |
this is not the purpose of the orignal statement,it was to prove what has more engergy, Low or high frequencies
|
agreed. so would you care to comment on this
[QUOTE]Higher frequencies tend to be more 'directional' than lower frequencies. Higher frequencies have a higher average power for any given section of the wave, than lower frequency waves. This doesn't mean they are 'louder' or have a higher peak amplitude... it just means they have higher power.
Follow me along this thought experiment. I'll assume you are familiar with the 'wave' in a stadium, whereby a line of people stand up and sit down in succession. Imagine these people, instead of getting up and down, are getting up and down on a step. The speed that the wave goes around the stadium is dependent on how fast each individual person gets up, since the next person in line has to wait for the previous person to move.
Now, let's say on two different days, you have two different waves. To make a wave with higher frequency, that is, to make a wave that goes up down more times in one second, you need the people to stand up and down very fast. They would use a lot of energy to do it. If you wanted the wave to move slower, you would tell them to take their time getting up. They wouldn't spend much energy at all. The amplitude, or the height of the wave, is going to be determined by how high the step is... the power of the wave is how much energy the people have to expend to get up and down it a number of times in one minute or second, etc.
So. Low frequencies, because of the big distance between the peaks and troughs of the wave... tend to go 'around' objects that are in their way. That is, the wave can maintain it's shape and still bend. High frequencies are narrow, because of their higher power, and very tightly packed. They have the tendency to 'bounce' off of objects in their way. Foghorns have a very high amplitude, and a very very low frequency. That way they won't be blocked by ships or rocks in the water. It ALSO means that they tend to 'bend' along the curvature of the Earth.
from www.physlink.com
[\QUOTE]
or this
| Quote: |
say you have a 6" speaker and you are going to play it at a fixed amplitude (stroke),
to play a very low frequency wave of say 100 hz the cone moves back and forth 100 times per second
now to play a high frequency sound say 10,000 hz the cone moves back and forth 10,000 times. so the cone travels 100 times as far to produce the HIGH frequency sound.
please explain how this uses less energy than the low frequency?
|
|
|
|
Registered:
March 2005
|
|
Re: tweeters?
|
Wed, 02 November 2005 09:11
|
|
man i've opened a case of physics whoop ass lol. Ok i have the tweeters in the doors, very close to the speakers and pointing towards the centre of the car. I actually had to know 3dB straight off them at the crossover and then some more on the parrametric EQ as they were to harsh.
Cheers everyone,
now wheres my frilly underwear
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
July 2005
|
|
Re: tweeters?
|
Wed, 02 November 2005 22:57
|
|
| Quote: |
say you have a 6" speaker and you are going to play it at a fixed amplitude (stroke),
to play a very low frequency wave of say 100 hz the cone moves back and forth 100 times per second
now to play a high frequency sound say 10,000 hz the cone moves back and forth 10,000 times. so the cone travels 100 times as far to produce the HIGH frequency sound.
please explain how this uses less energy than the low frequency?
|
Dunno if you read my post coz yours was up when i finished my novel, but my theory is;
It doesnt. BUT - say the fixed amplitude you use for the 10kHz tone is such that it is clearly audible to the ear. The 100Hz tone at the same amplitude probably couldnt be heard by the naked ear.
And consequently what we perceive as an equal volume means the low Hz tones are higher in energy.
Anyone got any better ideas?
|
|
|
Location:
Kellyville, Sydney
Registered:
June 2004
|
|
Re: tweeters?
|
Wed, 02 November 2005 23:10
|
|
you're thinking about it the wrong way. as you said the 10 khz is audible at a certain amplitude where the 100 hz is not this is because the 10 khz has more energy.
to get the same volume you have to increase the amplitude of the low freq waves to make up for this.
| Quote: |
Dunno if you read my post coz yours was up when i finished my novel, but my theory is;
It doesnt.
|
i'm confused now.
so you agree that if you have two waves of equal amplitude the higher freq has more energy? but you are saying to produce audible low freq sounds you must USE more energy. if so then you are correct.
chris
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
July 2005
|
|
Re: tweeters?
|
Wed, 02 November 2005 23:20
|
|
Yes that is exactly what im saying.
The confusion starts when you say ambiguously what has more energy - high or low Hz?
Well relative to what?
Relative to amplitude - high Hz does.
Relative to perception - low Hz does.
Most ppl are not this technical and only speak about sound relative to their perception. And furthermore, human efficiency at producing low Hz for listening is much worse than high Hz, so i think it is a general beleif that low Hz has more power.
|
|
|
Location:
Kellyville, Sydney
Registered:
June 2004
|
|
Re: tweeters?
|
Thu, 03 November 2005 00:51
|
|
so what you are saying is that since most people dont understand physics, we should continue to fill these forums with false and misleading information.
great plan
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
July 2005
|
|
Re: tweeters?
|
Thu, 03 November 2005 01:17
|
|
| mynameisrodney wrote on Thu, 03 November 2005 11:51 |
so what you are saying is that since most people dont understand physics, we should continue to fill these forums with false and misleading information.
great plan
|
dont be so fucking pesimistic mate!
i dont think i have mislead anyone. Nor have you, and we have both fucked up things we have said in this thread. If someone wants this level of understanding, i think we have given them plenty to learn dont you? And the original question of where do the tweeters go was answered and explored as much, and more than was needed.
|
|
|
.