∅ = 254 cm

 

I'll bite: Is that fun-with-AI, or something real? Reminds me of Disaster Area

 

 

about "Common Body Measurement Approximations" @ https://share.google/aimode/rDYD8GIMEuKPRspIB

 

Back to the Future we go.

Ron

 

View attachment 371169

https://hitchhikers.fandom.com/wiki/Disaster_Area

 

Yehbut, frequency response sucks!

 

Reminds me of the shaker table in the environmental lab where I had a product tested. Top frequency was only about 2kHz. The base weighed about 5 tons and the top surface of the table was 4 ft square. We bolted our UUT to the table surface. Beneath the table was a magnet and coil setup similar to a large speaker. With its 3 phase 208 powered 33kW amplifier, it was, in effect, a giant bass speaker.

 

I'll bite: Is that fun-with-AI, or something real? Reminds me of Disaster Area

It is real. ----> https://www.audioholics.com/news/ascendo-100-sub-pro

 

Reminds me of the shaker table in the environmental lab where I had a product tested. Top frequency was only about 2kHz. The base weighed about 5 tons and the top surface of the table was 4 ft square. We bolted our UUT to the table surface. Beneath the table was a magnet and coil setup similar to a large speaker. With its 3 phase 208 powered 33kW amplifier, it was, in effect, a giant bass speaker.

Now that you mention it. We used shaker tables (vibration) for environmental testing and some we lowered a thermal chamber on. Vibe and thermal shock testing. Yep, a gigantic bass speaker.

Ron

 

Ideally, a speaker's diameter should be at least equal to the lowest wavelength it will handle ... at least that's my understanding

 

Ideally, a speaker's diameter should be at least equal to the lowest wavelength it will handle ... at least that's my understanding

That can't be. The wavelength of a 20Hz signal is ~17 meters.

Oh, you said "ideally". Maybe. I'm not sure what that means.

 

That can't be. The wavelength of a 20Hz signal is ~17 meters.

right ... let me rephrase that ... the larger the speaker diameter, the lower its low frequency distortion ...

 

I would hate to have to build a box for that!

 

 

the lower its low frequency distortion

Attenuation, I think, not distortion.

Distortion would occur if the cone exceeded its linear excursion.

 

Attenuation, I think, not distortion.

Distortion would occur if the cone exceeded its linear excursion.

This is kind of a self-test for me, so I'm not googling the answer ... what I remember is that the low-frequency waveform tends to get clipped at its top and bottom if the speaker's diameter is too small.

 

This is kind of a self-test for me, so I'm not googling the answer ... what I remember is that the low-frequency waveform tends to get clipped at its top and bottom if the speaker's diameter is too small.

That would depend on how hard it's driven, no?

That's also why small subwoofers exist today with highly pliable suspension. In the "old days", you needed a big speaker to get deep bass. Not today.

 

If I recall correctly, from my early-70s audio enthusiast and tinkerer, the key with a speaker are both electrical and mechanical resonances. A larger loudspeaker would have a larger mass and longer throw, to avoid reaching the cone’s compliance limits.
Now, if someone knows better, let’s hear from you.

 

That would depend on how hard it's driven, no?

That's also why small subwoofers exist today with highly pliable suspension. In the "old days", you needed a big speaker to get deep bass. Not today.

Not only that, but the neodymium magnets from today are a major improvement over the AlNiCo ones from yesterday. This helps enormously with the cone damping.