Talk:Loudspeaker

Could someone please check my rewrite of the section on Horn loudspeakers?

I've edited the opening paragraph of the section on Horn loudspeakers so as to give a better background of their use. (More correctly, a brief history of the use of horns to direct and amplify sound, not just their use with drivers.)

I don't think this edit would count as "original research" as it's a bit of a link-and-cut-and-paste from other Wikipedia articles, but others might disagree. Also, I might not have conformed with proper Wikipedia style and I'd be happier if someone more familiar with Wikipedia's style standards would double-check what I've done. Thanks.

W.F.Galway (talk) 00:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks okay to me. Binksternet (talk) 00:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for discussion of the relationship between "impedance" and "sensitivity"

Based on my reading of a commercial website that compares various headphones, my impression is that headphones with a higher impedance will require a higher voltage to drive them. On the other hand, in Wikipedia's treatment of the history of headphones there is a mention that some headphones “... used with early wireless radio had to be more sensitive and were made with more turns of finer wire; impedance of 1,000 to 2,000 ohms was common”, this is as opposed to the statement that “headphones used in telegraph and telephone work had an impedance of 75 ohms”.

Presumably what is true of headphones is also true of loudspeakers. Assuming that there's any validity to my impression that impedance and sensitivity are related then I'd appreciate some discussion of that. (Perhaps a discussion would be appropriate if I'm mistaken in my impression, if it's a common impression.)

I suppose that the same discussion would be appropriate in the Wikipedia articles for Headphones and Electrical impedance.

W.F.Galway (talk) 14:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

As far as the relationship between impedance and sensitivity goes for loudspeakers (and indeed the relationship between resistance/impedance and efficiency for most electrical devices) a higher number of turns of wire in a coil of a given size generally translates to higher efficiency (as field strength = amps * turns) and also higher impedance. Because the coil has a greater impedance it is necessary to power it with a higher voltage source to achieve the same power input (power = voltage * current, (power ≠ voltage), voltage = current * impedance), but (again because of its higher impedance) it will not draw nearly as much current at that given power level (current = voltage/impedance).

At a given wattage/power input there may not be much difference between the outputs of two otherwise identical high and low impedance speakers, but generally the higher impedance speaker will have somewhat greater efficiency and therefore sensitivity due to the higher number of windings/turns of its voice coil (not to imply that the number of windings of a voice coil is the only factor that may affect a loudspeaker's impedance).

I would guess that the reason the impedance of the headphones for telegraph and telephone work was so much lower than that of early wireless technology was because telegraphs and telephones were wired (apparently at voltage levels better suited to headphones), and because of this there was less of a need for high efficiency listening devices to achieve adequate sound levels, or for high impedance devices to allow for higher than necessary voltages. On the other hand, early radios may have had circuitry with a very limited power output, or possibly higher voltage power supplies better suited to wireless communication than to listening with standard headphones. --173.213.130.195 (talk) 07:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Horn loudspeakers

Can the vuvuzela be mentioned as an even more efficient horn ? Appearantly, a practiced blower can attain 130 dB(A) ! Thus higher than a regular horn, meaning that the vuvuzela would be more efficient than traditional horns. Above that, as they're mass-produced for use in soccer stadiums (despite that it causes permanent hearing damage), and they're cheap (2€, ie via vuvuzelahoorn.nl, ...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.227.212 (talk) 12:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Vuvuzela is not a loudspeaker. Binksternet (talk) 14:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

You could use a vuvuzela to produce one frequency and several harmonics of it with rather high efficiency. A vuvuzela horn is not a loudspeaker. It is a sound producing instrument. Uikku (talk) 14:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Please explain "dynamic"

The article freely uses the terms "dynamic loudspeaker", "dynamic driver", and "electrodynamic driver", without defining or otherwise explaining them. It should not be assumed that the reader is already knowledgeable about loudspeaker design and its terminology; these terms should be explained.  --Lambiam 08:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

How to define a dynamic loudspeaker? First, there should be somehow arranged a strong, constant and homogeneous magnetic flux in a defined air gap. Second, there should be a moving electrical conductor (wire or other) inside that air gap. Third, there should be a sound radiating diaphragm mechanically connected to the conductor. Usually that conductor is called as voice coil, the air gap is round and a permanent magnet makes the flux. The diaphragm is usually a cone or a dome. 91.156.121.5 (talk) 14:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The term "dynamic loudspeaker" usually refers to a moving coil loudspeaker. As all loudspeakers are dynamic, it is not a very descriptive term. It would, in my opinion, be better to use the term "moving coil loudspeaker"). --Sigmundg (talk) 12:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

years later...I thought that "dynamic" initially referred to speakers with an electromagnet winding for the field, analogous to the way a "dynamo" generator has a wound field and not an electromagnet(as described on page 43 of the October 1928 issue of "Popular Science", hurray for Google Books (I had no idea John Carr had been around *that* long)). However, current usage seems to be that even permanent-magnet speakers are called "dynamic"; if we were being consistent with the machines nomenclature, these might have been called "magneto speakers". But usage is what it is and we record what the world calls them, not what logic might dictate. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I suspect the term is a Retronym borrowed from Dynamic microphone when speaker technology moved beyond moving coil. --Kvng (talk) 15:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the term "dynamic" was brought into the article to differentiate between the usual moving coil drivers and the unusual other types such as electrostatic and plasma. Binksternet (talk) 16:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I thought it refers to electrodynamics. Nikolas Ojala (talk) 23:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Speaker driver

It appears this article is written in WP:SUMMARY style. To further this, it would seem to make sense to move additional details to Speaker driver. Any comments? --Kvng (talk) 14:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure, the suitable details, regarding drivers. Binksternet (talk) 21:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Fils Sound Film Speakers and Emo Labs Invisible Speakers

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5biZvpUyv8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mVRKvU9Pf0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.86.212.21 (talk) 22:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Foam rot

There seems to be minimal coverage of the "foam rot" problem with speaker surrounds, though the problem has been widespread and is still continuing. There is a light allusion in passing, but nothing more. Could somebody who knows more about this problem share their Wikiwisdom on the subject? --Reify-tech (talk) 13:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Little has been written about it in high-quality sources. However, there are some magazine articles here and there... The earliest one I see in a quick search is a 1982 article in High Fidelity that talks about "foam for the compliant surrounds around the edges of their [Who?] woofer cones. With long-term exposure to air and pollution, that foam underwent a progressive chemical change, losing its springiness and in some cases virtually rotting away." I can't see the rest of that article in Google Books so I don't feel that I could use it in the proper context. I hope I can find an AES paper or something equally good. Binksternet (talk) 13:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

help with relation in the size of drive/magnet

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Question_about_subwoofers

Iskánder Vigoa Pérez (talk) 15:23, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

SPL?

A translation is required for this acronym.77Mike77 (talk) 00:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done Sound power level = SPL. Basically, how loud it gets. Binksternet (talk) 00:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

That was fast! Thanks. I was just looking this up, and there is an article about it that could maybe be linked, if you think that would work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_pressure. 77Mike77 (talk) 00:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

You're right! Brain fart on my part. Binksternet (talk) 00:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

driver design error

Your section on driver design has a small error. The part about tinsel wire. Tinsel wire is only used to connect the coil to the terminal lugs. the coil itself is made from fine solid copper wire not tinsel wire. Sorry i cannot provide a source. All i know is what i have seen from disassembling loud speakers. Also tinsel wire is not necessary for the coil it is necessary to provide motion between the cone and frame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claustro123 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

HIST 406

Wikipedia Critique: Loudspeakers This is a fairly extensive article, but scientific jargon makes it a little difficult to read. The “Introduction” and “Terminology” paragraphs are particularly useful, but the “History” section doesn’t tell a story of how loudspeakers came to be as much as it plainly lists a series of events that eventually result in modern loudspeakers. The section does give readers a sense of the community of improvement that led to modern loudspeakers, and it provides some details about variations and improvements. The material becomes easier to understand after getting through the “History” section, and this is due to 1) clearer writing that relies less on jargon, and 2) illustrations. There are illustrations for speakers’ external housings, the speakers themselves and their design layouts. The article covers all the main topics, such as how loudspeakers work and how they are built. It also includes information on what determines sound quality and a section on listening environment, which discussed speaker placement and mathematical expressions explaining the physics of sound movement. This article’s 53 sources are diverse, to say the least. About half of the referenced sources are books or legitimate articles. It also includes a number of personal websites, blogs, and even a cataloged email/discussion board response from 1998. The first source listed is a personal website managed by someone who “collect(s), research(es), and write(s) about old telephones as a hobby.” While you generally wouldn’t think of these as “good sources,” many of the personal websites/blogs linked to in this article appear trustworthy, not to say there aren’t a few that do indeed look sketchy. The page also appears to be maintained attentively, with revisions every few days. There are a couple sentences at the end of the “History” section that require citation, but for the most part this article appears free from frivolous contributions. HIST406-13awatkin1 (talk) 03:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)