Talk:Loudspeaker/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Insulting

"Measurements help to put a numerical value on several aspects of performance so intelligent comparisons and improvements can be made."

So objectivists are more intelligent than subjectivists? Uh... Bias, anyone?

24.170.179.16 04:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

"Intelligent" refers to the comparisons, not to the people. So I don't see a reason to be insulted. Jbusenitz 23:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Problem with "Horn loaded speakers" section

This section doesn't tell us what horn loaded speakers actually are! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.243.129.4 (talk) 18:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

Now it does! Stizz 17:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding peer review

My own opinion is that the article is far too long and onerous to read. In trying to covere everything related to loudspeakers it has become unmanageable. The first few sections are great but when it starts getting more and more detailed it really becomes a drag to read. I think it would be more appropriate to split off those extra sections into new, more specific articles and keep the main article manageable. The article on loundspeakers in my 1979 World Book encyclopedia is two paragraphs. I don't suggest anything that drastic but realistically I don't think a good Wikipedia article should more more than two or three printed pages. --BenFranske 05:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Perhaps we can get a concensous on how this article can most effectively be broken up without eliminating any of the material. Even as it stands, there are sketchy sections and absent material in this behemoth. A great deal can be covered in acoustics perhaps. Ancjr 08:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Heh. It is nice that the article isn't featured because it's too comprehensive :) I'll see if I can try splitting it up once I actually finish reading it. Some audiophiles have spent an awful lot of time on this, it seems. Chris Cunningham 10:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


The information is comprehensive, but one of the problems is that the article contains many references to a particular brand or model ... I am well aware that there are "textbook examples" of a concept, but the article should be reduced to lean more toward general theory rather than examples. Ancjr 12:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, agreed, there's certainly an awful lot of work left. Figuring out where to split things may help with this. Chris Cunningham 12:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
It really seems to me that this article should be split into Loudspeaker (driver) and Loudspeaker (system) (if that's the correct nomenclature). These are two very different things which are currently merged into one large article. There may be other ways to split it, but this appears to be the most logical to me. Comments? Jbusenitz 23:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Having two articles, Loudspeaker (driver) and Loudspeaker (system) makes sense to me. Loudspeaker(driver) can deal better with different technologies, materials etc. Loudspeaker (system) can be for a less technical audience. Iain 05:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad for the agreement, but I guess I would think that it would be appropriate to have content for both types of audience in each article. Both are very technical, complex subjects with opportunities for simplified verbage for the nontechnical audience as well. Jbusenitz 12:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


I have a suggestion. split this article into 2:

  • Moving coil loudspeakers
  • Speaker technologies

This seems to me to be the perfect split. The 'other driver designs' section would become the new speaker technologies article. Tabby (talk) 13:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Digital Speakers

Has more to do with the signal and/or amplifier than anything to do with loudspeaker. Ancjr 12:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

moved to its own page, with some difficulty ;) Ancjr 12:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Is there a particular distinction which would prevent its inclusion here for the time being? I've re-added a trimmed version just now, until the article really figures out what it wants to focus on. Chris Cunningham 13:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
A loudspeaker is an electromechanical device. "Digital speaker" is a type of signal. I think the article should be limited to discussing the device and its characteristics, not what can be played through it. What is being called a "digital speaker" here is really just a regular loudspeaker. I'm not overly familiar with the technology, but assume that those that are would know a more appropriate name than "digital speaker" for it as well. For those that remember back to the days of command line computing, there were DOS games and programs that allowed you to play audio through the PC Speaker. That is the concept this section attemps to descibe. To sum up: it is a way of encoding audio into a digital form to be played through a loudspeaker - not a loudspeaker type or characteristic, which should be the focus of this article. Ancjr 20:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm certain this is incorrect. PC speakers are piezos, and digital speakers (as presented) are mechanical components. Chris Cunningham 12:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)]
The speaker in any PC i'm aware of (save for laptops) is a regular electrodynamic "magnet, voice coil, cone" speaker. However, in the intrest of civility, I am leaving this article as is. Ancjr 06:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Section appears to be copied from the page [1]

Ancjr 07:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

For more information about digital audio being played directly into a speaker, refer to PC speaker and Linux PC speaker interface article. "Digital Speakers" in reference to this artcle refers to speakers attached to an array of fixed timer circuits, such that the total analog sound might be created from switching the various timers off and on. Think of how an array of tuned pipes on an organ combine to create a song. The difficulty would be that there are infinite frequencies present in the range of hearing, requiring an infinite number of drivers and timer circuits. The logistics are simply impossible. Again, this is a theoretical audio scheme, related to digital signals. Not a device. Ancjr 10:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, what? A series of drivers arranged in a ring around each other? As written, the section on digital speakers obviously describes a mechanical device. As written, the section obviously descibes a working, if impractical, technology. I have no idea where you're getting this from. Chris Cunningham 10:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Images

I've removed two handmade images. One of them was only linked from here: I've now added it to voice coil, and deleted the paragraphs that referred to it (which are duplicated in the coil article anyway). Chris Cunningham 15:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits

A recent spat of edits appears to have reverted some work I did yesterday. There's been no discussion of this and the edit summaries are blank. I'm going to assume it was a clash in editing and remove re-added material again. Please discuss this before reverting. Thanks. Chris Cunningham 12:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been doing some editing here, but I can't identify your edits so I don't know if I've changed anything you've left. My edits were largely to clean up language and not to delete content. I need more information to see what's up. ww 03:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I apologize for any material that was lost or modified due to the goof i made yesterday which resulted in the page being moved. It was an honest mistake, no harm intended. Ancjr 11:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

reversion getting out of hand

Mention of historical models of plasma arc tweeters and that there remains one maker has been repeatedly removed. As well, some discussion of operating principles was also removed. Wil the editor discuss ths before reverting please? ww 00:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

There was some consensus in removal of specific examples from the article in an effort to make it more succint, however, i don't remember that section being one of the offending sections. Ancjr 11:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
My edits have been disappearing regularly for no reason I can discern. The edit comments can be summarized as "superfluous, uninteresting, fluff, unnecessary". While all these are significant issues, especially applied to drive by graffitti edits, all are subjective. Not one edit I have made has been intended to do anything other than inform, give perspective and context, etc. Nor have they done so. All are permitted / required objectives in an ency type project. Without more information on why my subjective evaluation is less worthy than another editor's, the removals, reversions, and delections begin to appear to be vandalism. Personally directed? I've no idea at all. I'm continually surprised when I encounter this sort of thing, though having been on WP for some years, my surprise may speak mostly to my unsupported optimism. Information is lost by such actions and that's not a good fit to WP's purpose, to which we have all supposedly subscribed.
I think the situation is similar to encountering those folks who regard a red link as reason to delete a sentence, paragraph, or section. We have in WP an ongoing -- perpetually incomplete -- project, and red links will always be present. It is the nature of the enterprise. It seems to me the most reasonable response when encountering one is to go create the article, or at least a stub. It's less destructive, and more consonant with WP purpose and philosophy. And in the case of edits whose style is disagreed with, the most reasonable response is not preemptory <deletion, reversion, truncation>, but collegial discussion. Namely a discussion on the Talk page. We are enjoined, after all, to assume good faith. ww 20:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Conversely, I have to assume good faith when my sections are modified and deleted, even when the result is that they are made confusing, even inaccurate. We are a group of differing opinions, experiences and skill levels. Ancjr 14:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
To further address this, the best practice for this article would be to include the most succint, factual information related to loudspeakers possible. No matter the relevance or accuracy of a section or it's contents to the idea of loudspeakers, there needs to be a limit set on how large this article can grow before it simply becomes too much material for someone of casual intrest to attempt to sort through or understand. The material must be well written, with it's intended audience in mind for it to be relevant and useful. Even assuming good faith, there are many cases in this article that were written without the intended audience in mind. Ancjr 17:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, let's take this from the top.
Firstly, this appears to be the first time you've used the talk page on this article. It is generally considered to be good etiquette to make changes known, or invite some sort of discussion when making wide-ranging changes to an article, especially when said edits are not accompanied by meaningful edit summaries (i.e. of more than five words). So at least we have somewhere to go from in future.
Secondly, of the most recent edits, not one is sourced. This prevents non-expert editors from verifying material. Jimmy Wales has repeatedly made clear his belief that unsourced statements simply don't have a place on Wikipedia. In the case of articles which have already been noted as being too long, unsourced information is ripe for removal.
Thirdly, the summaries presented when I've made changes I've deemed to be unclear have consistently been more verbose. I try to describe contentious edits in some detail in summaries. While these may amount to the same thing, I have at least made my edits clear.
Fourthly, the style (overly second-person and prescriptive) of the article is not fitting with Wikipedia's general MOS. Information may be useful and infomative, yet still inappropriate for an encyclopeida article. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, no matter how useful it may be. I would not expect a dead-tree encylcopedia to recommend me brands of speakers or to advise me on how to take care of them; while undoubtedly useful to a subset of readers there are other publications which are far better suited to this stuff.
Fifthly, recent edits have often made changes throughout the whole article, seemingly as-spotted while editing. This makes it very difficult to isolate particular edits.
There's no reason this has to be combatitive, but we really need some discrete discussion of what to include and what not to include before it goes much further. As-is, people are undoing each others' edits. Chris Cunningham 16:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Ahh. You're Thumperward! The objection I have had to quite a few of your edits is that they have been made, and the edit summaries have suggested as much, from a priveleged position of evaluation of whether and which information (not clearly violating WP policy) is superfluous. As an example, readers may indeed be interested in the number of plasma arc tweeters formerly available, and taking a postion that it's obsolete and unnecessary so worth deleting is out of line in my view.
Then discuss it, don't just re-insert it with a one-word summary amongst a spat of other changes. Chris Cunningham 10:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Exactly what I'm trying to do having discovered the problem. ww
As for sourcing, we are here dealing with an engineering topic is a sense, and when non-controversial engineering edit content is made they need not be sourced. The alternative is gobs of footnotes, which would be undesirable in the extreme. This is written for general audiences, not as part of a PhD dissertation. Consider, for instance a statement in metallurgy that iron is a solid at room temperatures. This statement does not require sourcing as it is common knowledge / experience. In the audio engineering world, there are a multitude of such things, and my memory of some of your deletions is that you regarded my phrsasing of some of them as unacceptable and inmmediately deletable. Perhaps you thought these were controversial points? If so, you should have said so here. None of my edits have been intended to delete material, and mostly have been clarity or phrasign improvements and so not controversial.
I disagree with your characterisation of edits which describe the various working states of loudspeaker manufacturers as "engineering" and thus not requiring sources. Frankly I think we can have a discussion about having too many footnotes when we actually have too many footnotes. In future I'll bring them up here on a case-by-case basis. Chris Cunningham 10:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Bringing it to the talk page would be well. Thanks. ww
As for concision, I'm all for it. However, it can be taken too far, and for a subject like this, there is no concise way to write an article which is suited to beginners (a large portion of our assumed audience fo this article) without some pedagogy. Good writing takes as much space and time as required to convey the point, and no more. Quite how much is to some extent a styistic issue in many cases.
I don't believe this is the case. Firstly, the current style of the article is extremely technical, so the explanation that it needs to be long to cater for novices doesn't hold. Secondly, I haven't yet found an article which can't be made readable through sufficient effort. If the article is taking on too much subject material it can be split. Thirdly, While Wikipedia gets a lot of stick in the dead-tree press for its lack of prose, I dare say more people use it as a reference material (where finding information quickly is important) than spend all day reading it. Prose is premature optimisation imo. Chris Cunningham 10:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
By at least one standard (actual math and physics content of which there is essentially none there being not one equation nor serious discussion of physics -- contrast Art Ludwig's sound site which is superb and quite professionally technical with lots of equations and discussions of real physics) this article is not technical at all. What it is trying to do, and I agree that it should be trying to do so, is to explain matters (some of them technical though important) to the Average Reader. As such we needn't have extensive reference to the theory of Helmholtz resonators (an historical issue which would be fair to bring up in a general article) or even Pythagorean harmonic vibration, some additional explanation of electrical filter theory qnd its history, and finally explanation of how it came to be that Thiele (and later Small) brought that filter theory into acoustics and enclosure design. All are connected, all are entwined in the historical development of human understanding re speaker design, and all might have some claim to inclusion here in the name of encylopedic 'completeness'.
Instead, I think it sufficient in this article (though perhaps not in another) to state that makers used one sort of enclosure or another, based on this or that impression of how to design them (with increasing facility by the best practicioners as the 'rules of thumb' got better) for decades until a major advance was made by Thiele/Small et al, after which all changed for most loudspeaker designers. It was an epochal advance -- which the Average Reader should be told. Which is now nearly universally used by vendors to design cabinets, match cabinet characteristics to particular drivers, and so to improve performance at low frequencies. With the, worth explicitily noting, exception of some horn and transmission line designers. That latter version need NOT be sourced as it is settled engineering these 30+ years on. Rather similar to the iron is asolid at room temoperature business I used as an analogy. And in any case we provide links for those who do wish to chase down some of the technical material.
It's not possible to do that, starting from a reasonable assumed level of knowledge and understanding in the Average Reader (not much) for whom this article is meant, without using more words than some seem easy with.
Speaking professionally, this is simply not a standard to which we can repair. And insisting that others do so, or that the article should do so is rather a case of losing the possible in the pursuit of the ideal. A problem humans have had since Plato I suspect. There aren't enough language artists -- without doubt including myself -- available, not least because loudspeaker is rather an obscure topic for most, and great artists are likely not to be available for an essentially engineering (in many respects) topic. ww
I'm not going to even read the above tretise. There's a case to be made for lengthly prose and debate. This article isn't one of them. Suffice to say the entire article could be reduced to the volume of wording in the above commentary and be completely adequate. Ancjr 06:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree whole heartedly that good writing is very desirable here, as everywhere on WP. I don't agree that good writing results from reflex deletion in the interest of concision. If an editor can't take the time to recast a change into good prose, don't delete stuff, nor just throw in a fact or two, more or less at random. Since I noticed this article and began to edit here, it's been clear that some editors are a little shaky on good prose. Attempting to correct some of that, in the process recasting for clarity, is not automatically fodder for deletion. Especially repeated deletion. ww 08:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
That's why, in the face of being reverted by a slew of undiscussed edits, I took this to talk. Let's work it out. Chris Cunningham 10:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
And identically for myself. Good. Now that we've confirmed we're on the same wavelength (ahmmm), let's get on with it. ww
I have attempted to edit the artcle as best as possible using these guidelines, and to reflect current technology and practice. I realize not all information I've presented is sourced. However, neither are the modicications to my material. A great example of what is wrong with this artcle is when I've debunked the digital speakers section as being a signal/amplification scheme and not a unique loudspeaker device or arrangement, it is still defended as relevant material. Ancjr 16:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Concur with the general goal here. But I seme to recall reading a paper or two on digital speakers in the sense used here. I don't recall enough to have edited any of it (save perhaps for English), and I suggest that this is the sort of thing which does deserve sourcing, being as I gather, mostly theoretical. ww 08:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
See above. As currently written the digital speakers section describes an existing mechanical technology. Either this is true or it isn't, but let's go by what is actually written as opposed to by anecdotes, or by some first-principles divination of what a "digital speaker" is. Chris Cunningham 10:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Material derived by divination is once again, outside the scope of this article. Ancjr 20:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Current Critique

Here are some general points where I see room for improvement. Please, feel free to add to, and discuss, and make improvements towards adressing each one of these:

  • Audience analysis - rewriting of many sections and topics with intended audience in mind.
Agreed. I think our target audience in this article must be assumed to be non-audiophiles, not DIY speaker designers/builders, not acoustic experts, ... Thus, that we would be teling someone who is, something they already know is not sufficient objection for deletion. ww
Agreed Ancjr 20:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
See above. ww
As is, the article is beginning to read like an ad for alternative speaker technology. Ancjr 20:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:VERIFY - verification of sources and claims.
Perfectly sensible with the reservation that, in an article about an engienering topic, there will be many observations which need not be sourced, lest there be a futile and pointless forest of footnotes. ww
I agree: the result would be, as you say "a pointless forest of footnotes." When the article is made concise, its sources and claims can be referenced with a reasonable number of footnotes. Ancjr 20:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Certainly, but not at the expense of intelligibility to the Average Reader for whom we are writing. There are facts and implications that the Average Reader will not see, though more knowledgable or experienced folks will. "Superfluous" depends on the Reader. We are not wriitng for experts here. ww
Simply making sentences and paragraphs longer does not add to the value of the information contained in them. Ancjr 20:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Added tags re: above discussion. Ancjr 21:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Ancjr 22:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Design edits

Notes here:

  1. The materials construction should be removed entirely. voice coil etc. have their own articles. This is clogging up the section.
I'm not sure what you mean by this statement. The basket, surround, spider and cone are all very relevant and, in my opinion, essential, pieces. Ancjr 22:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Telling our Reader that all these things matter, there and that there is considerable variation in actual practice is a worthwhile goal. I agree the writing is awkward. ww
I mean the exhaustive list of potential materials the components can be made from. This is trivia. Of course most electrical wiring is made from copper. Chris Cunningham 14:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, there are non-estoteric actual engineering reasons to use aluminum or silver, or aluminum or non-conductive coil formers, etc etc. This is not trivia. Whether it is unsuited to this article or this section or whatever is another question. I think you've conflated your understanding with what may be useful or suitable to our Average Reader. I find that much of this article -- all of it actually -- is trivial from that perspective. This is material I learned before the flood, as it were. But neither the state of your knowledge nor of mine should contribute much to determining what goes into the article. Soembody will always find something trivial, and contraiwise, someone else will be puzzled or misled by leaving out some point. ww
This is the usual inclusionist argument. I'm opposed in general to stating the obvious or the trivial in articles. What the average loudspeaker's wiring is made out of is the epitome of trivia IMO, and in the interests of making this article a joy to read I still plan on eventually removing it. Chris Cunningham 08:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Having now been put in my place as an inclusionst, I think the discussion is not advanced one whit by so doing. This article is supposed to expalin things to people. What degree of knowledge would you have then acquire by reading it? It appears only that you find non-trivial or superfluous. A joy to read, but leaving out things other editors think worthwhile including? ww
  1. HUGE amount of waffling. "should be", "ideally", "or several". This is audiophilic nitpicking. I've just removed this, it serves very little purpose.
Good deal - it exposes/eliminates the ads as well. Ancjr 22:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Disagree. There is a purpose to be served in indicating to the Reader that there is no exact solution to any of these issues. They do have consequences in sound quality, and these points are nor mere audiophile nattering about nothing. As for eliminating the ads, there were none. The manufacturers mentioned are examples only of design approaches. No evaluation about their relative virtues is made so as to help sales, and in any case it's clear that they are only examples (eg, the etc or ... which connotes more, just not listed just now). ww
Readers are not idiots. They do not expect four paragraphs to provide omniscient coverage. The effect was to impress upon the reader that the authors are very Wise and Knowing by hinting at complicated trivia. Chris Cunningham 14:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Chris Cunningham 14:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Omniscient coverage isn't in the cards here. This is an encyclopedia and not a manual of practice. So any such Reader expectation would be misplace. And I agree that Readers are not idiots. However we cannot assume they are as informed (misinformed) as we, and so our presentation will necessarily include some stuff that some people will regard as superfluous. This is not a criterion suitable fo ruse in deciding deletions or excisions or whatever. Making clear (at least in basic outline) a puzzling business to the Average Reader is. If we have to stand on our metaphorical heads and make noises like orangutans to do so in our writing, so be it. If that is over information for some, it will probably be underinformation for others who are finding the idea of resonance of any kind rather baffling. How to thread the maze is an eternal problem. ww
What you've written is all very well, but in the context of discussing whether or not a dozen unsupported instances of the words "may", "usually" or "often" instead of "is" it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Chris Cunningham 08:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't prove what? That system design is an art, with many conflicting (and not really well understood) issues are involved? Would you have a reader conclude that there ARE clear answers to the basic problem of sound quality in loudspeakers? ww
Loudspeaker types
  1. Renamed the section, we should probably use "driver" consistently throughout.
Also in line with industry practice. Ancjr 22:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Agree. However, I've been using speaker system to convey the comples combination of driver/crossover/cabinet into a single thing. with loudspeaker as a synonym on occasion. ww
This distinction is not currently at all clear in the article. Chris Cunningham 14:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I had been doing so without being explicit. Should we be so? If so, then I suppose it ought to go in the introductory section with the rest of the terminology. ww
Please. Chris Cunningham 08:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Wilco. ww
  1. More waffling.
There is plenty left. Ancjr 22:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  1. Full-range section waffled, prematurely introduced coaxial speakers, and sounded prescriptive. Of course things can be problems "without careful design". Cars can explode without careful design, but automobile doesn't repeat how important it is to design cars well every paragraph.
 :D Ancjr 22:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Propose a better solution, then, than unilateral preemptory deletion on grounds of poor writing style. There is content there, however much one disagrees with the wording. I just left coaxial where it was, as the design approach is another way to reduce phase and other distortions caused by separate drivers. :D for sure. ww
The better solution is to remove it. Readers are not idiots. They do not expect to have to be told that electronics are complicated all the time. Chris Cunningham 14:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
There are several levels at which complication intrudes in system design. One, which we cover more or less, is low freqeuency design, into which electrical, enclosure, and driver characteristics are intertwined. Another is driver blending in multi-driver systesm. There enclosure shape, driver mounting, crossover design including component characteristics, and driver characteristics are tangled. If some of these adaptions are done via electronics (eg, the Bose 1801/901 equalization box, or in crossover designs, Zobel impedance correction filters, ...) the complexity is not avoided, just transferred into a different design space. And so on. Readers can be fairly informed that these complexities exist, and one mention of them does not, in my judgement, do that. No evaluation of Readers as idiots is involved. [[User:Ww|ww]
I'm of the opinion that this article isn't an appropriate place to discuss the intricacies of analogue electronics. Discussion of potential sound quality problems should be peripheral to this article; currently it's the primary focus of large parts of it. This is reinforced by the sheer number of times the subject is brought up in the current article. Chris Cunningham 08:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
This is a bit of a strawman, don't you think? Especially since no intricacies are actually discussed as it stands. Merely some of the issues speaker designs confront in an attempt to be as good as they can be. Maybe they should join the Army? No math, no physics, no circuitry, and no solutions. Anyway, the ONLY point of speaker design is to maximize sound quality within constraints of cost, intended application, size, power required, etc. It is certainly not out of bounds to address this point. How else could we account for the variety of speaker drivers, systems, and design approaches evident to any who bother to look? it is, after all, the (alleged) reason for all those variations. ww
  1. There's a continual tendency to parenthesise things instead of trying to integrate them. Most parentheses in this article should die, as should all the latin.
I've also attempted to help in these areas. I was suprised at the misspellings - many of them mine ;D
Lots of the splngs are due to my errant fingers, I'm sure. As for parentehtical phrasing, some of it's mine. Feel free to de-parenthesize in the interest of better content clarity. But, recall that a parenthetical phrase gives the Teader a clue that this point, while of lesser importance shown by it's being parenthetical, is important enough to mention nonetheless. A grace note, as it were. ww
  1. The N-way section doesn't need to go on about the signal being amplified again. We should just refer to the electrical signal as "the signal" after the first explanation.
I sympathize, but note that it's remarkable how easily the non audio orientd can get their mental feet tangled. We should avoid that by preemptive good writing. ww
Certainly. I feel this whole section could do with a rewrite. Chris Cunningham 14:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Have at it. But remember Einstein, "things should be simple, but no simpler". ww
  1. Are "passive crossover" and "active crossover" useful terminology? This section isn't clear whether these are audio terms or just ones taken from electronics. if the latter, they should maybe be removed entirely, just using the component types to identify them. This whole paragraph is technical and confusing.
There is the case that the crossover will be internal to the speaker enclosure, and be a passive component - 99% of home audio speakers are this type. There is also the case that the crossover will be external to the speaker and be an active crossover: the signal is fed to the crossover, then each crossover output is fed to discrete amplifiers that are directly connected to the appropriate drivers in the system. "Bi-amping" or "tri-amping" does not require active crossovers as the article implies. Active crossovers are ubiquitous in "X.1 surround sound" receivers, sometimes seen in car audio, very often seen in mobile and permanent installation in professional audio. Commercially available powered sub/satellite systems are various combinations of both active and passive crossovers. Ancjr 22:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes they are useful terminology. Among other things the terms tell you how many things you'll have provide power for. And, you many not like high level passive components in the signal chain given the expense and lack of precision such components usually have. External crossovers, not large passive components after a single full range amplifier can be either passive (no gain, all resistors,c apacitors and inductors) or active (gain components, using electrical filter designs). Passive multi-amping is not common, but sometimes used. Ancjr is correst that multiband low level crossovers are generally of the active, powered type. ww
This wasn't really what I asked. In the interests of clarity, reasonably strightforward concepts should be explained without jargon. Is "passive crossover" a term in itself, or simply a way of indicating that a crossover is built from passive components? If the latter, then the article need not use the term "passive crossover" when it's going to have to be explained anyway. Chris Cunningham 14:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Ahh. Well... The terms are actually used in real life. Thus, "Is this a passive crossover or an active one?" And the distinction is not negligible as it has considerable effect on the topology of an audio system. There are issues of system efficiency, crossover accuracy, damping factor issues, etc. And the distinction should be made here, messy sounding though it is to the non audio person, and however awkward to write about. Passive and active are first level distinctions in discussing circuitry; so I don;t think we can really avoid it without introducing mischevious confusion ourselves. Rewrite, sure... Leave out things, more controversial, I suppose. By the way, is there a damping factor article? ww
Yes: Damping factor. I linked to it just yesterday :-) !
Atlant 20:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm encouraged that editing here has become somewhat more collegial and cooperative. ww 01:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

As it should be. There's no reason it can't continue this way. Chris Cunningham 14:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Audio being an art, there are differing philosophies and schools of thought involved - I must say that having familiarity with many of these schools of thought leads me to believe this article is still largely biased to the detriment of the other philosophies. There should be equal weight given to all, or the article should be reduced to plain-english summation of the mechanics and science only. Ancjr 21:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'll bite. The philosophy you think is neglected is...? There are things left out here, to be sure, but I can't think of any that aren't even more unusual than. Say, the Manger / Ohm drivers or the plasma tweeters. All still in production, but not a major influence on the field commercially. Maybe what's missing is the tapered horn transmission line used in the B&W Nautilus and one or two others? If not, I'm lost. Help... ww 02:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Don't forget using superheating air with lasers (similar in operation to plasma tweeters) and whatever this is - there are simply too many ways to create sound to cover in this article and give them any more than a cursory and even confusing explanation. K.I.S.S. - The article's constant name dropping seems a bit spam-y anyway. Focus on the loudspeaker device and leave esoteric and proprietary designs to thier own article(s). Ancjr 07:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
We've not got more than cursory coverage of any design approach save the electrodynamic driver and multi-way systems. All the rest are obiter dicta as it were. ww
I'm very, very firmly of the opinion that this article should be rid of almost all philosophy. I'm certain that there are already better places on Wikipedia for such discussion. Chris Cunningham 08:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Mention of certain brands or esoteric designs implies that particular philosophy. The article is full of it. Ancjr 19:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
To further clarify, I'll choose and example that was introduced earlier: Automobile - there are mentions of brands and specific examples, but they are mainstream production, "available anywhere" technology. Ancjr 19:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Still not clear what's going on here. Philosophy is marked by mentioning other than mass market stuff? Mention of less than successful commercial designs is a philosophy? I'm still at sea here. And, as enjoyable as this colloquy has been, I'm getting confused by all the interlineations. Let's start a new section for this, yes? ww
Is there a purpose to discuss the case for simplicity which you refuse to acknowledge, or would you prefer to produce a discussion page as bloated as the current article? Ancjr 06:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Goals

Recent edits are straying from the WP:Style guidelines and also the peer review goals from Wikipedia:Peer_review/Automated/February_2007#Loudspeaker - Please keep these in mind when editing or adding additional material. Ancjr 00:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say the edits are "straying" as such; the article is mostly continuing along the same track as it was before, becoming more an more like an exhaustive essay on home audio. I'm not sure what can be done about this in light of the dismissal of previous talk critique as a difference of opinion. Chris Cunningham 09:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
There are additional edits made that stray from convention and style on a daily basis: consistantly the same errors, consistantly from the same editors.
That aside: If I were the only editor, and given this article, I would reduce it to only covering the loudspeaker, as a driver unit, and driver unit alone. References to devices which are not a "magnet-voicecoil-cone" would be made, but would be succinct and direct to articles which would cover them in detail. All details of acoustics, enclosures, mounting schemes, crossovers, directivity and the like would be integrated into thier own articles. If there is an alternate way to make the article effective and readable, I'm watching and waiting for it to manifest. I will conceede that the article isn't my soapbox and refuse to edit war and troll to accomplish that or any other goal. Ancjr 09:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm taking the same approach. Too much edit warring recently. Chris Cunningham 08:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
All righty, then.
We seem to have some difference of opinion on the scope of the article. Ancjr would have it limited to electro-dynamic drivers alone, with pointers to other kinds of drivers. And would handle the integration issues where, in that case? Were agreement to be found on this point, much would be setlled on other issues as well.
I've been involved, and remain so, in several large WP projects with long articles on complex topics and have consistently argued in those contexts that articles of first resort, like this one, should not end up as a collection of pointers. The reason is that our Readers are not likely to have the gift of combining the content of several pointed to articles into a coherent picture of the field. In this case, the field of electrical to acoustic transduction of speech and music and such. This is a rare talent, inherent in or trained into scholars, physicians, researchers, etc and rarely into the average person, who is the Reader assumed here. Concision and elision of contextual perspective is perhaps appropriate in a technical article which our Reader (if encountering it at all) will understand is a kind of 'inside baseball'. For speakers, such an article might be magnet structure, or surrounds, perhaps especially at the viscous damping section. But not, I suggest, here, in an article of first resort.
As for how much prose is too much prose, that is affected by the answer to the previous. More limited scope will mean a smaller article, clearly enough. Parsimony is good.... But not good in all cases. We must keep in mind the Reader here. I think, to most people, the word loudspeaker means that box or boxes which make the noise. If that's the subject of the article, then we're covering (more or less, and there's material I would certainly cut and reorganization sI would undertake) that subject. Since it's a large subject, we are unlikely to have a good article without some length, as there is too much material to cover. History, perspective, alternatives, commercial practice (there being effectivley no non-commercial practice of significance), etc. I note that the objections re philosophy and excess have not been made from the perspective of a Reader's presumed interest. However that might be (probably variously) interpreted.
As for Ancjr declining to read comments here, I think that regrettable as it rather precludes editorial cooperation. An objection to another's editorial approach is best addressed, rather than ignored as not being worth reading. ww 18:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure where you're getting this idea that Ancjr isn't reading comments here. I rather feel that it is you who isn't participating in discussion, what with your editing style having not changed at all since initial engagement (still dozens of global micro-edits, frequently adding ambiguousness or prescriptive trivia, with one- or two-word summaries). Simply replying to comments on talk isn't the same as engaging in collaboration. For my part I don't feel it's worth my time to continue to critique current edits because it doesn't appear to have influenced the article at all. Chris Cunningham 07:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

<--

Ancjr's comment here -- 6.18 5 Mar 07. As for my style of editing, I've not made large changes (reorganizations, changes in emphasis, ...) as there is some disagreement here as to the article's purpose. Nearly all the edits I've made have been, in my view, corrections or amplifications of existing content. Or less than majro adjustments. do you think this wrong? As for adding ambiguity, we should not be over definite in a field with much amibguity itself. This article should match that which it is describing. There are many approaches to designing a loudspeaker (driver variations, crossover variations, cone material variations, ...). Should we not take note of these, albeit briefly? My summaries attempt to reflect the importance and significance of the edit. If I've merely changed a phrase, no more seems justified as an edit summary. If I've added a paragraph with some new material, I try to use "+<topic>" as a comment. Perhaps that makes clear what wasn't? ww 20:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

For comments: as a recovering programmer, I was always taught to comment why something was being done, and verbosely; not what was done, which should be obvious from reading the diff. As for being definitive, this is a high-level article on the subject. Most textbooks take the approach of treating information as factually accurate to a degree befitting the audience, with more advanced or specific texts taking the time to explain nuances and explain where a previous explanation was unsatisfactory. This article tries to elaborate on everything, which makes it both difficult to read (it continually wanders off into nitpicking tangents) and really pretty vague (because it refuses to put its foot down). This was addressed in the previous peer review. I know exactly where you're coming from, and I appreciate the work you're putting into the article, but I fear that for the time being there's really no way I can contribute to it because we're wanting to pull the article in different directions. Chris Cunningham 20:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
As a recovering programmer myslef, I understand your orientation. I would note that's not quite what's going on here though. As for the textbook model of repleted coverage of material eact time more detainled and complete, that's not what we're doing her. This is an encyclopedia, to which our Reader repairs to learn about something, not to take the first step toward mastery. So the article ought to, in my view, explain enouhgh about the subject that, when finished, the Reader will understand the shape and contour of the subject. More technical material can be pointed to, or left to textbooks, or whatever, but no large concept should be omitted, even if not exhaustively covered nor all nuances dealt with. And well-written too!! Concision comes after these goals, I think.
Just how do you disagree? Should we leave out that the whole field is a maze of competing approaches? That some designs are no longer much used? That there is NO agreement amongst practicing designers as to the best way to approach just about anything? Disagreement with the existing article, and with me as somehow responsible for it or for perpetuating it in its unsatisfactory form is fine, but what would you do otherwise? Aside from noting superfluity? What direction do you want it to go in? Since your statements here have not managed to make clear to me at least, other than disagreement and frustration, perhaps you could take a section, create a scratch version (on your talk page, or a sub page, maybe), edit it to your satisfaction, and invite others to take a look? As an example? Or maybe a revised TOC outline, leaving out those sections you think ought not to be here? Or something. Note that I've agreed with you about concise (I only note that we shouldn't hurt article quality by doing so), about good writing (though I think you and I have some stylistic divergence there), and (perhaps?) about the target audience, there are already some common grounds, I think. Am I badly wrong in this as well? ww 22:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
It does raise a conundrum when attempting to write an educated, encyclopedic article and include such a great deal of unsourced opinion. Which opinion(s) do you include? How much detail do you give to each opinion? It is well true that there is no perfect way to reproduce sound. There is no question in my mind, nor has there ever been. This article is not the place to discuss this idea, in whole or in part. The article is to describe a loudspeaker, which is an electromechanical device that produces sound. However, this article has opened Pandora's Box, in that it has fallen off the edge of fact and reason and is mired in opinion and novelty. Your arguments to continue this course have degraded into Fear, uncertainty and doubt. The current doctrine is not improving the article toward refined encyclopedic content. Rigor must be applied in its further development. Ancjr 15:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
So your opinion is that only existing devices need be mentioned, without any context within which to understand their significance, historically, or commercially, or functionally? Rigor indeed! But to do so, I'd think we need to have more than just the two of us (or Thumper too) settling the issue. I think the Average Reader will want to know more context than this approach will provide. Like that electrostatics are highly regarded (reviews, sales, ...) but impractical for several reasons. Like the dust collection due to high voltage business, and monster size in all that have pretensions to full range use. Or the dipole buiness, which makes for quite a different sound for them, including the confined sweet spot business. But if we supply that much context for the electrostatics, we're obliged to do so for other design approaches, and we end up with something like what we've got -- though I think what we have it needs improvement myself. The alternative, to describe the most common and leave it at that, puts all context on the shoulders of the Average Reader who will have to hare off to lots of other articles to try to stictch together the contxt not found in the first level article, this one. I've suggested in respect of several articles that we simply can't assume our Average Reader can do that. It's an odd and uncommon talent. Comments in reaction to these arguments? ww 23:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I've begun work on a sandbox version of the article. Ancjr 04:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

from wikitext in section digital speakers

Underdeveloped as-is, contains no information unique to loudspeaker topic. At best, may be interpreted as an N-way crossover where N is the number of bits in the digital encoding. -- True enough, and just the difference. --

It's presence here implies it as a unique physical device that is capable of generating sound, which it is not: it is another form of crossover.

Example: Horn loudspeakers - Physical device capable of producing sound Piezoelectric speakers - Physical device capable of producing sound Plasma arc speakers - Physical device capable of producing sound Heil Air Motion Transducers - Physical device capable of producing sound Electrostatic loudspeakers - Physical device capable of producing sound Digital speakers - electronic device capable of routing signals

One of these things doesn't belong here.

Well, this all ought to be on the talk page, but there have been such speakers built -- very low fi and not for music or speech, more like the EoEoEo... sirens on some emergency vehicles. No commercial examples except for such sirens and the like, and they aren't usually thought of as speakers, though they are. Real hifi ones would be possible but grossly impractical for any but Bill Gates. Hard to say quite what to do with this. Perhaps add to an experiental category with the ultrasonic beam speakers (otherwise not menationed here) and the rotary subwoofers good to DC (likewise not mentioned here) and both extant commercially?

ww 04:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

An experimental category would seem to be more fitting. Ancjr 02:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, there's the ultrasonic speaker, and in my opinon the panel exciter speaker drivers, the super SPL driver boxes (thouth they're not speakers per se since no one should actually listen to them. And field coil magnet drivers are still being made by some French company or other. Cabasse is apparently thinking about making multiple concentric ring radiators. An embarrassment of confusing and likely less than destined for success possibilities. ww 04:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Huh? Ancjr 03:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Flat-panel NXT speakers

There's only one reference to the "flat" NXT speaker technology on the page, but it doesn't go into any detail about how it works. Can anyone fill in the gaps? I think NXT speakers are different enough than "traditional" speakers to warrant a mention (of course, not in any advertisement or endorsement capacity) W3bbo 09:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

NXT is not the technology, it's the company. Distributed mode loudspeakers is the technology. If this is to be included, then shouldn't Bertagni, BEST, and other flat panel topologies also be decently represented?. Howard Doctor 07:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the article should "represent" any particular manufacturers. I think we can mention notable ones but sections should describe the technology, not a specific manufacturer's applications. When a sufficiently grey area of dispute should arise (re. Bertagni vs. NXT - I would say bertagni is not related to nxt, but many may disagree...) I think the article will get bogged down in needless detail that could be moved to another article.--Ron E 19:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Copy edits (continued)

Some areas of this article have improved, others have been (inexplicably?) lengthened and seem to be little more than incoherent collections of random trivial facts in no particular order. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article. The tone should be informative and neutral, the sections should be concise and mention of specific manufacturers (and innumerable special cases) should be kept to a minimum, IMO. Every Mfg touts their technology as superior, but this is marketing - not something this article should get into. I have attempted to edit the beginning of the article with this philosophy. I believe it is much tighter, but it could still use more work, hopefully the other frequent editors will agree. I fear to spend a lot of time on something that may just be reverted...--Ron E 04:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I have made many changes - hopefully the article is better as a result. Perhaps the only thing I have significant issues with is the directivity section - there is too much mention of manufacturers and the section strays too far from the point.--Ron E 19:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Calling all gurus

Hi. I am no "speaker-head" (Well, maybe I am a "talking head") but it seemed to me that we had two articles on the same subject of plasma speakers so I suggested a merge. Would you'all please help? Thanks. --Justanother 15:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

This article, if mentioning plasma speakers (and it should in my view), not be the only coverage. The drivers are interesting, complex, and deserve their own article. Here we mention them as an example (albeit exotic) of yet another driver design. So on that grounds I oppose the merge here suggested. parsimony is good, but too much is over simplification. ww 04:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi. You misunderstand my point, I think. There are two articles on plasma speakers; Plasma speaker amd Plasma arc loudspeaker. I suggested they be merged and I was looking for some help by knowlegable people like yourself. I am an engineer and I can do a passable job of merging them but it is not really a subject I know anything about. --Justanother 11:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi. In technical refrences concerning loudspeakers, both are used. I think the two entries essentially mention the same type. So I agree with the merge. If you have more support, you can do it. --User:Dale Zhong 14:58, 6 July 2007 (GMT+0800)

Big chunk removed from directivity section

Coaxial speakers have been made commercially since the 1930s. These approximate a point source by moving the radiating axes of the various drivers close to the same point, usually with benefits in polar response. Coaxial mounting eliminates crossover lobing (that is, interference between drivers caused by non coincident placement). The woofer cone often acts as a horn in many respects. <-- section begins name dropping very heavily --> The technique of using concentric radiating elements for a multiway system has been used by several manufacturers, notably Technics. Cabasse recently published a paper analyzing 3-way and even 4-way coaxial speakers using concentric ring-shaped radiators. Several manufacturers (for example, Tannoy, Eminence, etc.) still build 2-way coaxial drivers in which the tweeter fires through a horn that passes through the woofer pole piece, and several (for example, KEF, SEAS, Kea-Audio, Tannoy etc.) build coaxial units in which the tweeter is mounted on the woofer pole piece. The small form factor this last approach requires has been made more effective by recent developments in rare earth magnets.[1]

Several manufacturers have attempted to simulate a point source by approximating a pulsating sphere. In the 1960s, Amar Bose (an MIT Professor) designed a one-eighth sphere loudspeaker system covered in small full-range drivers for room corner placement. The 1801 produced a wavefront very like that of an ideal sphere when wall reflections were included. Few were built and the system was not a commercial success, but it gave rise to commercially successful speaker system designs (the 901, most importantly) which also use multiple small drivers pointed in various directions to create a mixture of direct and reflected sound claimed to approximate that of a concert hall. In the 1801 and the 901, the small drivers involved were not actually inherently full-range and required considerable equalization to provide adequate low frequency performance and to compensate for decreasing high frequency performance. Especially at low frequencies, this approach demanded rather more amplifier power than competing speakers of the time. Both techniques have remained somewhat controversial.

The Ohm speaker drivers, whose principle was invented by Lincoln Walsh, use a single voice coil/cone mounted vertically, firing downwards into the top of the cabinet, but instead of the normal almost flat cone, has an extended cone entirely exposed at the top of the speaker. The usual problem with designing a cone driver is how to keep the cone as stiff as possible (without adding too much mass) so that it moves as a unit, and does not support traveling waves nor distort during cone breakup. The Walsh driver was so designed that the entire purpose of the cone's motion was to generate traveling waves down the cone from the magnetic motor (that is, voice coil and magnet structure) at the top. As the waves moved down the cone, the effect was to reproduce a 360 degree wavefront at all frequencies, more or less like a cylinder. This created a very effective omni-directional radiator (although it suffered the same "planarity" effect as ribbon tweeters for higher-frequency sounds ) and eliminated all problems of multiple drivers, such as crossover issues, phase anomalies between drivers, etc. However, in practice it was found necessary to use a very complex and expensive cone made of various materials along its length.

High fidelity speaker systems of this design are still being produced by Ohm in the US, and in Germany, by German-Physik and, as a variant, by Manger. This approach has not been used in professional sound reinforcement, most likely due to the delicacy of the physically large cone structure and the inherent cylindrical directivity.

I thought some of this text was interesting and placed it here for pruning and inclusion in the other driver designs section.--Ron E 01:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Added some of the text to other drivers and removed it from the talk page...--Ron E 02:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup thanks

Thanks for your efforts in cleanup, Iain. One thing you wrote is that ...An acceptable frequency response for a loudspeaker can vary from +/- 3dB... but there are quite a few loudspeakers with +/- 10 dB variation assumed or stated clearly in their specs, and even that low level of frequency response can be 'gamed' using statistics. Binksternet 13:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts on the length of the page

Too much information is included on this page. Its has become a page for writers who know a lot and need a channel for all their knowledge to escape to the outside world. An inquisitive layman will get confused if he visits this page. A lot of topics like "crossover networks", "speaker enclosures", "wiring connections" are redundant on this page. If the regular contributors agree, I can help in getting the job done. Sub40Hz 09:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The page needs copyediting, yes. It doesn't necessarily need to be shorter, though that might result from editing. Please don't attempt the job yourself! Just now I had to revert your writing that an infinite baffle is a sealed box. An infinite baffle is not sealed, it is open in the back--a fairly good real-world example is certain guitar amp designs that have open backs... You also wrote that the role of the enclosure is to "prevent the sound waves from the back of the speakers to meet directly with the front." This turns out not to be the case; in fact, some enclosure designs attempt to route waves from the back around to the front so they can combine in phase within a bandpass. I fear if you edit the whole page, it will have to be reverted in large sections or in toto. Binksternet 13:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I really believe that this page is two topics masquerading as one: drivers and systems. They are two different subjects, and there should be a different page for each. This may help some with the organization of the rest of the content. Is there any reason to keep both topics in a single page?
Perhaps it would be useful to have this page serve more as a jumping-off point leaning more heavily on links to pages that dive deeper into the subject. Less text here; more prominence given to links. Binksternet 16:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
That could make work, although I think that if we separated Loudspeaker into Loudspeaker (driver) and Loudspeaker (system) pages, the links would be by nature organized better and the whole thing would be more manageable. Jbusenitz 17:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
A 3rd grader can revert what I write, because its Wikipedia, not because I am ignorant. If anyone belongs to a group trying to protect this page, that does not necessarily imply that they know the right things. As I said before, this page is a classic example where audiophiles have expressed all of their versions of knowledge, resulting in more of a technical journal than an encyclopedia page. It should be more brief and simpler.Sub40Hz 07:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
The page lacks vital basic information, it assumes that the reader already knows them. It is flooded with advanced topics that a layman wont be interested to know. There should be a good balance in both. Sub40Hz 07:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Sub40, The article, like most articles, can be subdivided. Whether this would be useful is another question. We are here writing an encyclopedia, and so our writing, and article subdividing, should be subordinate to that purpose. In this case, "loudspeaker" is a very complex topic. It involves material science, electrical engineering, acoustic engineering, economics (and its evil twin, marketing), aesthetics, philosopy (Platonic and other, in the question of what is the thing to be reproduced), psychology, psychoacoustics, manufacturing practicality, quality control and statistical variation in acceptable products, ...
The Average Reader will not be an expert in more than one or perhaps two (or even 0) of these, and so an article must provide -- if not complete exhaustive information on all relevant issues -- at least notice that there are assorted connections.
The present article is not, as you suggest, flooded with technical material (save perhaps for the equations about halfway down). It may have more than you are interested in, and seems to, but that is not definitive for what should (or not) be included here. Editors should always keep in mind the Average Reader, especially in an article such as this which is one of first resort for those Readers. If they want to know more, or more technical, they can follow links or references, but the article should make them aware of issues such as those listed above.
And, at least as important, should do all this briefly (insofar as possible), in clear and uncomplicated prose. With cogent and useful images, crosslinks, references, and of course sufficient citations to avoid problems with POV and Original Research.
Red Smith, a great writer, once said writing is easy, just sit down at your typewriter and open a vein. No wonder collarorative editing gets messy. ww 17:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your patience in trying to explain. The page covers more than one subject. It deviates from loudspeakers into electroacoustics, speaker systems, crossovers and what not. All are related but for clarity, there should be a few lines (2 or 3) alloted for each subtopic, and then links to seperate pages.Sub40Hz 21:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Then we'd end up with a pointer collection, not a very good writing style. All that stuff you noted is central to understanding how loudspeakers work, not peripheral. ww 03:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
How many words per link make some text a "pointer collection"? Sub40Hz 04:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Infinite Baffle

Regarding the subject of infinite baffles; the adjective "infinite" has meaning here. A guitar amp speaker cabinet is a finite (open) baffle system; there is nothing infinite about it. An infinite baffle is effectively infinite in size, which does prevent the acoustic short-circuit. This can mean that the internal volume of the enclosure is merely enough larger than the equivalent air volume of the driver suspension (Vas) that it has negligible effect on the resulting system compliance. I will dig up the relevant references to support this and report back, if there continues to be debate. Jbusenitz 14:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Another revert of Sub40Hz. I'm looking forward to seeing Jbusenitz's reference on finite and infinite baffles. The phrase "...and prevent the sound waves from the back of the speakers to meet directly with the front" continues to be untrue for every case. Binksternet 16:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, what is your reason for defining "infinite baffle" this way (essentially as an open baffle), and how do you think "infinite" applies? Jbusenitz 17:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes (Jbusenitz) open end enclosures are NOT infinite for sure. Infinite baffle is a baffle with infinite dimensions, or an enclosure where a baffle is folded around to make a sealed box. Also I am inquisitive to know what is the job of an enclosure exactly? Just to support the speakers? Then why dont we use hooks to hang them from the wall? Its difficult to find references for very basic stuff, anyway heres a link. http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jun04/articles/qa0604-6.htmSub40Hz 16:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Check out the Wiki article Loudspeaker enclosure. Also, you can read Loudspeaker_Design_Cookbook and "Introduction to Electroacoustics and Audio Amplifier Design". I'll try to add references to the relevant pages when I get time. Jbusenitz 17:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
There is a link in the main article, I dont know who added it, http://www.caraudiobook.com/car_audio_subwoofer_system/car_audio_subwoofer_system.htm which says "The simplest enclosure type is an infinite baffle or free air system. .... In this system the woofer has the front of its cone isolated from the back of its cone by mounting the woofer to the rear deck." The words *REAR DECK* indicate a sealed enclosure and thus its an infinite baffle. Its so basic though misleading to even "sound engineers".Sub40Hz 16:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree with the statement "indicate a sealed enclosure and thus its an infinite baffle"; an infinite baffle could be applied to a speaker mounted on a wall (where the other side is not enclosed at all), which is not a sealed enclosure (but is IB). Jbusenitz 17:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
In that case, Jbusenitz, all doors and windows of the room have to be closed, so the front surface of the speaker is equivalent to being mounted on an infinite baffle. Sub40Hz 18:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, except that the enclosure type does not refer to the listening environment, but to the space on the other side of the baffle from the listener. The interior of the house is described by small room acoustics. But an astute comment nonetheless. Jbusenitz 17:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

<-- The term infinite baffle is one of those which are confusing at first glance. Obviously, there is no such thing, given the nature of infinite. However, for practical purposes the mathematical ideal of no no interference can be (mostly) achieved with a sufficiently large baffle. These being impractical in many situations even so, folding a large baffle is often done, all the while retaining the term. Lots of sloppy use of language in English. It infuriates the French when English speakers import and abuse French terms, and annoys those of a tidy cast of mind as well. We're probably stuck with it, as English has a very long and recidivist history of stealing words, misusing them, and then keeping them around beyond any rational sense. Even short words get maltreated, consider the traditional meaning (from Shakespeare's time) and the current meaning of "awful". A complete reversal, there. ww 17:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

So whats your point Ww? A lot of terms in english are misleading. A pointing device is called a mouse, and a keyboard does not open any lock. Should we *carefully* refrain from using those terms in computer related Wikipedia pages? I am not sure whose face you are saving. But I'm sure readers are the ones who are suffering. 121.247.226.118 21:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
That fixating on the strict meaning of a term isn't much to do with actual use in many situations. English is sloppy that way, as your examples, and vast vistas of them, show. You just end up spinning your wheels if you do. ww 03:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
"Infinite baffle" is a term that is here for decades, and its an industry standard. If you are explaining speaker systems, it should be the first chapter, what it means that I am not interested about. Names are just names. Tweeters hardly tweet. We should call them "Screechers" or "Hissers" according to you.Sub40Hz 21:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I guess I don't see an awful (pun intended) lot of confusion in the term "infinite baffle"; it describes a large closed box which has a compliance much greater than that of the driver suspension, with the result like that of a speaker on a physically infinite baffle. Reference: Baranek, L. Acoustics Chapter 8 p210-211. I've never seen any reference to an open-back enclosure as "infinite baffle". Jbusenitz 22:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
For those in the business, or actively interested, it's not much more than a bemusing speed bump. Long ago, folded (H style or something similar) were regarded as effectively equivalent to the totally impractical large enough actual flat panels. Very little SAF for anything with any sort of low frequency response, so they were never much used. ww 03:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Numerous companies manufacture economic satellite speakers for a 5.1 system with FR around 200Hz-25KHz, and those speakers ARE almost always mounted on infinite baffles. It is 2007, and you can see infinite baffles everywhere. Just check your computer store. I can only agree with you that infinite baffles are not used in low frequency applications anymore. Sub40Hz 16:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
My humble opinion, "For those in the business, or actively interested", an internally damped infinite baffle is still the cheapest and easiest design to achieve a flat response from a driver which does not have to handle low frequencies. You should include it in the article.202.78.235.162 17:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Split & Add

2 suggestions for improvement:

Split proposals for article (eg, template at article head)

Split this article into 2:

  • Moving coil loudspeaker
  • Speaker technologies

The 'other...' section would become the new technologies article.

There actually aren't many new technologies in the loudspeaker biz. Lots of advertising spin suggesting as much, but new ideas aren't too common. So, I think there's not much need for the second section here. The distinction between one technique for getting air moving and another, at least not for the Average Reader. The problem isn't really getting the air to move, it's to do so with low distortion and high accuracy over extended frequency range. To concentrate on the motive technique neglects much the AR will need to learn. So I don't think the proposed split makes much sense. There are already articles on most of the sub topics, in any case. We've a reasonable structure to serve as an article of first resort as things stand. Improvments in detail rather urgently needed, of course... ww (talk) 21:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, the obvious split to me is into Loudspeaker (driver) and Loudspeaker (system). These are two distinct topics, and cramming them together makes the article more difficult to read and organize. Any comments? Jbusenitz (talk) 03:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Agree. How about if the Loudspeaker (driver) information takes over (or radically augments) the Voice coil page? Loudspeaker (system) could redirect here, or this page could dab to either page. My vote is that this page present the Loudspeaker (system) information while the driver data get to move elsewhere. Binksternet (talk) 05:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, the Voice coil page has a lot of driver-level information. OK, I need to read up on how to split a page into two. And I guess it will probably be a lot of work to change the links as well... Jbusenitz (talk) 14:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, guys, I hate to say it, but there isn't a consensus here. There are two suggestions as to splitting, 1 comment re one, and 2 re the other. This is not a consensus, sorry. It's a lack of objection. And you're right that there's a bunch of work involved. You might have to request that an admin do it for you, and I'd have to decline. I never did learn how. Anyway, I think I'm opposed to both proposed splits, on behalf of the Average Reader who cannot be expected to have the skill of assembling a coherent picture from a collection of pointer to other articles. It's a rare skill, practised in academics, some doctors, too few politicians / regulators, etc. Several review articles I've worked have suffered from just such brevityitis (to their considerable detriment and that of the Average Reader). This one should avoid that fate. ww (talk) 07:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
True, the initial suggestion was different. But I fail to see how splitting this article into it's two major components (drivers and systems) would not benefit the average reader. If anything, it would make for two shorter, easier to digest articles, and avoid confusing the two topics (which is a risk with the current article). Jbusenitz (talk) 00:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Too many ":". I understand your reasons for objecting to the present article. But this is your opinion, not a consensus.
For an example of the damage that can result, let me refer you to Attack on Pearl harbor. Review the page history and compare the long form article before the recent breakup (it earned a Featured Article star and main page placement, before a series of dribble edits which lowered quality gradually). The longer article was, regrettably long, but it's a big subject. The article now covers the raw attack and provides extremely little context for the Average Reader, who is not -- professional experiences speaketh here -- going to refer to the broken out and shorter parts for a better picture. If so, the Average Reader will leave the article with little better understanding of the attack than before reading it. It will never reearn its FA status if it stays more or less where it is. And WP will have, and has, failed to do its job as a result. And the cause was a failure of editors to write well, as defined as for their intended audience. In the case of a article of initial resort, as both these are, that intended audience is the Average Reader for whom I've been attempting to speak. The specialist will indeed chase down other articles and even vaguely related ones, to be sure they've collected 'all' the facts. This is not Averaqe Reader behavior, as they are not specialists, by definition. Perhaps about cats or the siting of new coffee shops or clipper ship design, but not about Pearl Harbor. So the WP policy on article length cannot rationally apply to survey articles, to article so of first resort such as these, lest WP lose the forest for the trees, as it were. And now I trust my position on this is less obscure? ww (talk) 11:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
A little, but not much. I'm not advocating removing material or making the article more specialized. I'm suggesting separating the two topics into separate articles, as an engine article would be separate from an automobile article. Your example, while valuable in general, does not necessarily apply to this case. The Average Reader understands that a loudspeaker driver is different from a loudspeaker system; combining the two makes an unnecessarily long and confusing article. Jbusenitz (talk) 23:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Jbus, I note that you've added a template header to the article. And so I've changed a couple of the headings here so people can find the discussion area. But let me respond to the point you made about a month ago. I don't see a problem of loss of information on WP in the split you propose, but rather a lack of clarity fo rthe AR, for whom I've been speaking. By requiring an AR to check into several articles, there will be (experience speaks here) a loss of comprehension for many. That's not good WP writing, it's merely obedience to an arbitray short article policy, which in my view ought ot be changed for introductory, first resort article such as this, or the Pearl Harbor article I noted above, or any of several other survey articles. This is not an improvement edit to WP, but a reduction in its suitabilty to its readers (or at least a large part of them). We should not do this. ww (talk) 00:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for adjusting the headings. I honestly don't think that separating the article into it's two components will reduce clarity, and I don't propose it for brevity. Rather for the sake of organization, as it would seem more confusing the the AR that the two separate scopes of loudspeakers are lumped into one article. However, I'm certainly not going to force the issue if I'm the only one who thinks the split is a good idea. Jbusenitz (talk) 16:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I AGREE with your proposal of splitting the article, the article is becomig too long, and we need to split it because it's hard to read, but really hard!, and also it would be easier to edit. Please, SPLIT THE ARTICLE!--Carmaster 03:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Whether the article is split or not, the issue is that it needs better organization. These are two distinct topics. The section on drivers the final paragraph has miscategorized info about speaker systems. I'm about ready to speedily delete it.

Mikiemike (talk) 23:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)--

Add moving iron

Moving iron should be the first and oldest other speaker type mentioned in 'other...'. These come with many forms of acoustic loading, including horn, cone, disc, diaphragm only, and resonant chamber. To describe them simply as 'horn' seems like confusion to me. Many types of speaker mechanism can drive a horn.

Moving iron speaker is a new article just written. Tabby (talk) 13:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The 'Loud' in loudspeaker

AIUI the old term 'loudspeaker' meant a speaker loud enough to listen to without having to put it up to one's ear.

"Alexander Graham Bell patented the first electrical loudspeaker as part of his telephone in 1876"

I could be wrong, but I thought this was not a loudpseaker, but rather a speaker (or what we would today call an earpiece). Speaker and loudspeaker are not quite the same thing. Tabby (talk) 16:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Moving iron not moving coil

"The modern design of moving-coil drivers was established by Oliver Lodge in (1898)[3]. The moving coil principle was patented in 1924 by Chester W. Rice and Edward W. Kellogg."

Is this not a contradiction? AIUI pre-1924 speakers were mostly moving iron, never moving coil. The 1924 patent would seem to confirm that. Tabby (talk) 16:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Audio Engineering Society - Convention Paper" (PDF). Retrieved 2007-02-21.