• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Can bass waves actually hurt you?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes, and that's why the number one cause of driver failure is excess heat. It's also why if you want to go loud you're better off with more drivers driven with a moderately sized amp than fewer drivers driven by a high power amp. Using more drivers increases system efficiency, and the drivers don't get as hot.
He's probably never seen one, they disappeared from useage in the US decades ago.

Thanks for the attack on me again!
Now with using multiple drivers you get in to phasing problems. Using more drivers is a better way to disperse the heat .
 
Perhaps some comprehension on your part? Or reading my posts properly? If you wish to prove Bill wrong, take apart his maths.


Im wating for Bill to prove me wrong!
So far is math is correct. and I never had a problem with most of what he has said.
By saying that a car can not do 170 db is wrong on his part when he knows nothing about caraudio.
 
Depends on the centre to centre spacing of the drivers and the frequency in question. Not an issue for adjacent LF drivers, at LF.




Using lets say 100 drivers.
Getting them to move exactly at the same time is was I was referring to. Not so much as physical voice coils phasing like center to center placement.
 
Now with using multiple drivers you get in to phasing problems.
Only when the distance between drivers is 1/4 wavelength or more within the driver passband.

Im wating for Bill to prove me wrong!
What's the matter, spell check still down? Try clicking that 'rec' icon on the upper right.

As for proving you wrong, the laws of acoustics aren't a matter for debate. That's why they're called laws. :rolleyes:
 
Using lets say 100 drivers.
Getting them to move exactly at the same time is was I was referring to. Not so much as physical voice coils phasing like center to center placement.
This is all well understood since Olson, and it's done every single day in hundreds of sites in large PA systems.
 
Thanks for the attack on me again!

That wasn't an attack. He simply said you probably weren't familiar with phone booths/boxes, if I'm not mistaken.

Between your comprehension skills and your texting-stylee punctuation and spelling, paragraphination and so forth, and inability to communicate at the level of the people you are, uh, debating, you just sound like a guy who threw a whole bunch of money at filling out a vehicle with a certain cunning to make a lot of noise. But when talking about it you don't seem to exhibit much understanding of basic audio concepts so is it any wonder that you are not recieved with open arms?

This isn't a bunch of phans who are going to think any guy that made a car burp loudly is some kind of a genius.

There's been some other interesting posts in the thread, so how about the car audio back-and-forths either goes to a higher level or gets shelved entirely?
 
Yes. 5% is a good number, unless it's a compression driver.

Invalid Link Removed

Look at the EFF column.

Wow, those numbers are all over the place, from 0.3% to 7%. I didn't know there were such wild efficiency variations from model to model.

Here's a stupid question: Why are some speakers designed to have such super a low efficiency? Can you improve some other desirable parameter at the expense of efficiency?

And I apologize if I'm interfering with the regularly scheduled flame fest. :p
 
This is all well understood since Olson,
He's as likely to know who Olson was as the man on the moon. Next he'll be wanting to know what Superman's sidekick has to do with speakers.:D

A suggestion: if the mods don't close down this piffel let's the rest of us do so. I already regret the loss of the fifteen minutes of my life that I'll never get back, wasted responding to this loon. :bawl:
 
Why are some speakers designed to have such super a low efficiency? Can you improve some other desirable parameter at the expece of efficiency?

It's tougher to convert low frequency signals to acoustic energy in air, thus much of the differences in efficiency.

It's another one of those No Free Lunch things that you so often see ; }
 
Apparently subsonics can cause discomfort at least. I remember reading about a system designer who was setting up a sound system and unwittingly was pumping 16 Hertz signal through the subs at pretty high wattage. They couldn't hear it, but after about an hour both he and his assistant vomited. Also, an old Guitar Player article mentioned that French police were experimenting with subsonics for riot control.
 
No, you didn't. The small confines of a van, or any car, 'fools' the meter into giving a much higher reading than is actually present. As I sit at my computer I can get a 130+ dB reading just by blowing at the meter mic, as it's air pressure that it actually reads, and then converts into dB.
BTW, with perfect speaker system with 120dB/watt sensitivity (and there's no such thing anyway) the following amounts of power would give these outputs:
1 watt/120dB
10 watts/130db
100 watts/140dB
1,000 watts/150dB
10,000 watts/160dB
100,000 watts/170dB


here ya go!



ad still still wating for bill to blow his hot air in the mic in a car and gain that 10db!
 
Here's a stupid question: Why are some speakers designed to have such super a low efficiency? :p
Bandwidth and efficiency are a trade off. From a box of equal volume you can go with a wider bandwidth or higher efficiency, but not both. In a nutshell pro-sound drivers go loud but not low, hi-fi drivers low but not loud.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.