Jump to content

Talk:Loudspeaker

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


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

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

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

[edit]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

Horn loudspeakers

[edit]

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, ...)[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.227.212 (talk) 12:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.natutech.nl/00/nt/nl/154_161/artikel/26695/Vuvuzela-stethoscoop.html
Vuvuzela is not a loudspeaker. Binksternet (talk) 14:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Please explain "dynamic"

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Speaker driver

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Fils Sound Film Speakers and Emo Labs Invisible Speakers

[edit]

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)[reply]

Foam rot

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

help with relation in the size of drive/magnet

[edit]

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

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

SPL?

[edit]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

driver design error

[edit]

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)[reply]

Quite right. I removed the Tinsel wire link and added a link to Voice coil. We'll shift the burden of providing refs to Voice coil editors. -—Kvng 15:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HIST 406

[edit]

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)[reply]

It might be good to put this into a list form, or a form with bullets, in chronological order. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:33, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

[edit]

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Speaker or Speaker (electronics)

[edit]

"Loudspeaker" is a somewhat dated term, and is typically reserved for larger systems such as those used in schools, auditoriums and outdoor venues. Speaker also turns up more results on Google. Ticklewickleukulele (talk) 05:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per WP:NC, which says to use a name that is as concise as possible. Loudspeaker is more concise than the suggested solutions. As well, the term "loudspeaker" is used quite a lot in professional sound, in all English-speaking countries. Binksternet (talk) 06:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Binksternet, how is Loudspeaker more concise than Speaker? Jargon used in professional circles aside, the COMMONNAME for the devices described in this article is speakers. It is exactly as the OP has said: in the real world", "loudspeaker" means either the intercom/speakers systems used in grade schools, the speakers in auditoriums that are connected to a microphone on a stand that a person speaks into, or an electronic megaphone (as opposed to the original accoustic type of megaphone) is often called a 'loudspeaker'. But nobody in the lay public calls their radio or stereo speakers, etc, 'loudspeakers'. They're just 'speakers'! This is a problem, it requires a fair amount of digging through the article before even a notion that the article subject is actually what most people just call "speakers" forms, and the article itself doesn't even take matter up. I was not entirely sure until after i tried to search for "speaker" and saw that this was the only relevant article.

So, what say ye to that? Firejuggler86 (talk) 21:51, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The OP was suggesting a parenthetical word "electronics" tacked on the end. I was saying that the slightly longer word loudspeaker is a better choice because it is more concise than adding a parenthetical disambiguation of any sort. Loudspeaker is shorter than "Speaker (electronics)". I don't see any need to move the article. It's not broken. Binksternet (talk) 22:01, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was ignoring the suggestion of a move to "speaker" because it seems absurd to me. That word also means a person who is speaking. I doubt anyone would consider the electrodynamic noise maker to be a more prominent usage than "person who is speaking" which predates it by millennia. Binksternet (talk) 22:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on Loudspeaker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tiny speakers

[edit]

I came here to find info on the latest tiny speaker. I have a pair for my computer. They are about two inches square. I bought them to replace speakers I got about six or seven years ago that were about six or seven inches tall. I want to know how the manufacturer can make such a tiny box with a pretty good sound. What has changed in recent years to make this possible? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:31, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aliasing?

[edit]

A late section describes aliasing in a certain type of speaker. A better term is heterodyning, and requires some sort of nonlinearity to be involved. Only frequencies higher than the fundamental are produced. Aliasing (Nyquist-Shannon Theorem) relates to digital sampling of analogue signals, or even a digital signal of much higher sample rate. The signal must be low-pass filtered to a max of 1/2 the new sample rate for evenly spaced samples. Evenly spaced samples may be regarded as multiplying square or tri-square waves with a sinusoidal time signal. The result is a convolution of the two waves in frequency space. Thus frequencies lower than the fundamental will occur with equal power as the artificial high frequencies.61.68.161.48 (talk) 00:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Loudspeaker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:12, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Loudspeaker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Passive speaker#Primary topic

[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Passive speaker#Primary topic. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:11, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Military uses

[edit]

Mention military uses, like

(not Long Range Acoustic Device). Jidanni (talk) 16:43, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merge September 2019

[edit]
Merged by Wtshymanski 21 December 2019‎

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Field coil loudspeaker is very short and mostly recaps the discussion at this page. It could be merged to put these devices in context. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Spin off content on dynamic loudspeakers to new article and convert to overview

[edit]

The current state of the article comes across as a clumsy combination of two different types of article. On one hand, there's the broad overview of the various aspects of loudspeakers in general (technology types, crossovers, general history, etc). On the other hand, there's a lot of detail on dynamic speakers.

Perhaps a better treatment of the subject would be to convert this page into a technology-neutral overview article and move the content that's specifically about dynamic loudspeakers off into a new article (I would suggest the more formal "Electrodynamic Loudspeaker" as the title for the spin-off article), leaving just a single-paragraph overview on this one like the other technologies have.

Roxor128 (talk) 03:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be good support for this but there is an apparently conflicting counterproposal at Talk:Electrodynamic speaker driver#Merge into Loudspeaker? (2022). Does anyone else want to weigh in on this?

Scope of article is "speaker (audio equipment)", not "loudspeaker", which is a subset thereof; thus, the article title should be changed

[edit]

The scope of the article is "speaker (audio equipment)", not "loudspeaker", which is semantically a subset thereof; thus, the article title should be changed. The article is about *all* speakers, from big loud ones down to small quiet ones such as those used in headphones. I will move this article to the accurate title unless anyone can present a credible argument for not doing so. Quercus solaris (talk) 17:05, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Done. Lede includes wikilinks to headphones (for small, quiet speakers) and to loudness (for loudspeakers). Quercus solaris (talk) 22:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - WP:COMMONNAME would have a role here, because no layperson calls the speaker in an earphone a "loudspeaker". That broader sense of the word may well be a technical term of art of audio engineers, but it's not a common/layperson name for the whole class (speakers from small and quiet to large and loud), whereas "speaker" is. Regarding the conciseness argument, the length of the two character strings is neither different enough to matter nor, within sensible limits, inherently relevant to article title choices per WP:COMMONNAME. Quercus solaris (talk) 04:20, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Striking your duplicate bolded !vote, because you are the one who proposed this. We already know that you support your own proposal. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 16:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose - The proposer seems to mistakenly believe that a loudspeaker is a subset of speakers; i.e., a speaker that is loud, as compared to a speaker that is quiet. Of course, this couldn't be further from the truth. "Loudspeaker" is the correct term to describe all such transducers, regardless of their maximum potential for loudness. If you take a closer look at reference #1 in the article (which is used as a source for the first sentence of the lead, which erroneously defines loudspeaker as a speaker that is "audible at a distance"), you'll notice that the source exclusively uses the word "loudspeaker", and never defines it as the subset of speakers that are audible at a distance. I am confident that there is no reliable source that describes it this way, therefore I'm removing that from the lead immediately. While there might be some merit to the argument that WP:COMMONNAME requires us to use "speaker" because it's used somewhat more commonly than "loudspeaker", I disagree with that as well. "Loudspeaker" is used quite commonly, especially within the audio industry and more technical sources. It's not an uncommon name at all. Also, WP:CRITERIA shows that there is more to choosing a title than just finding the most common term; there are other considerations like concision, naturalness, and precision. I would submit that "Speaker (audio equipment)" is neither natural nor concise. In my view, resorting to a parenthetical phrase to disambiguate a title is almost never preferable if there is a viable alternative, and it's evidence that the current title is less precise, since a "speaker" could also be a person that is speaking. (Interestingly enough, in my audio education I was always taught to refer to people that are speaking as "talkers" instead of "speakers" to avoid the ambiguity.) I agree that the title should be reverted. If it cannot be shown that there is consensus for this page move in a reasonable amount of time, the title should be reverted back to the long-term status quo of "Loudspeaker". —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 16:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I've moved the page back to Loudspeaker. While I appreciate Quercus solaris' bold change to the page title in an attempt to improve the article, there is no clear consensus for this change, and there are several editors who oppose the change. Therefore, I believe it is best to leave the page at its original title until a clear consensus emerges to move the page to a new title. I'm also quite confident that there are no reliable sources that will back up the assertion that a loudspeaker is a subset of speakers that are audible at a distance. Since this discussion attracted relatively few participants, I think we should leave this discussion open to see if any other interested editors express their opinion here. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 19:07, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Loudspeaker&oldid=1194336396"