| Author | Topic |
|---|
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 
|
|
|
| | Subject | Poster | Date |
|---|
 |
tweeters?
|
Big Rob | Fri, 28 October 2005 13:44 |
|
Re: tweeters?
|
willwal98 | Fri, 28 October 2005 16:23 |
|
Re: tweeters?
|
clubagreenie | Fri, 28 October 2005 23:28 |
|
Re: tweeters?
|
Big Rob | Sat, 29 October 2005 00:34 |
|
Re: tweeters?
|
willwal98 | Sat, 29 October 2005 01:40 |
|
Re: tweeters?
|
Phrostbyte | Sat, 29 October 2005 14:05 |
|
Re: tweeters?
|
sagluren | Sun, 30 October 2005 10:59 |
|
Re: tweeters?
|
willwal98 | Sun, 30 October 2005 11:18 |
|
Re: tweeters?
|
feral4mr2 | Sun, 30 October 2005 11:52 |
|
Re: tweeters?
|
illuminatus | Sun, 30 October 2005 14:30 |
|
Re: tweeters?
|
Kurt.R | Sun, 30 October 2005 23:24 |
|
Re: tweeters?
|
mynameisrodney | Mon, 31 October 2005 00:12 |
|
Re: tweeters?
|
mic* | Mon, 31 October 2005 02:25 |
|
Re: tweeters?
|
Big Rob | Sun, 30 October 2005 23:29 |
|
Re: tweeters?
|
Big Rob | Mon, 31 October 2005 04:21 |
|
Re: tweeters?
|
Big Rob | Mon, 31 October 2005 04:24 |
|
Re: tweeters?
|
Johnny | Tue, 01 November 2005 06:22 |
|
Re: tweeters?
|
mynameisrodney | Tue, 01 November 2005 07:34 |
|
Re: tweeters?
|
illuminatus | Tue, 01 November 2005 22:10 |
|
Re: tweeters?
|
Johnny | Wed, 02 November 2005 01:38 |
|
Re: tweeters?
|
mic* | Wed, 02 November 2005 01:58 |
|
Re: tweeters?
|
mic* | Tue, 01 November 2005 08:26 |
|
Re: tweeters?
|
mynameisrodney | Tue, 01 November 2005 09:07 |
|
Re: tweeters?
|
love ke70 | Tue, 01 November 2005 11:44 |
|
Re: tweeters?
|
mic* | Tue, 01 November 2005 22:26 |
|
Re: tweeters?
|
Big Rob | Wed, 02 November 2005 00:15 |
|
Re: tweeters?
|
mic* | Wed, 02 November 2005 00:28 |
|
Re: tweeters?
|
andurils_sheath | Wed, 02 November 2005 01:56 |
|
Re: tweeters?
|
mic* | Wed, 02 November 2005 02:05 |
|
Re: tweeters?
|
andurils_sheath | Wed, 02 November 2005 03:50 |
|
Re: tweeters?
|
Johnny | Wed, 02 November 2005 05:34 |
|
Re: tweeters?
|
mynameisrodney | Wed, 02 November 2005 02:09 |
|
Re: tweeters?
|
mic* | Wed, 02 November 2005 02:37 |
|
Re: tweeters?
|
mynameisrodney | Wed, 02 November 2005 02:49 |
|
Re: tweeters?
|
mic* | Wed, 02 November 2005 06:08 |
|
Re: tweeters?
|
mic* | Wed, 02 November 2005 06:10 |
|
Re: tweeters?
|
mynameisrodney | Wed, 02 November 2005 06:10 |
|
Re: tweeters?
|
Big Rob | Wed, 02 November 2005 09:11 |
|
Re: tweeters?
|
mic* | Wed, 02 November 2005 22:57 |
|
Re: tweeters?
|
mynameisrodney | Wed, 02 November 2005 23:10 |
|
Re: tweeters?
|
mic* | Wed, 02 November 2005 23:20 |
|
Re: tweeters?
|
mynameisrodney | Thu, 03 November 2005 00:51 |
|
Re: tweeters?
|
mic* | Thu, 03 November 2005 01:17 |
