Speaker at C4...

[Ricketty C]

I\'m having trouble understanding the ratings of speakers intended to be embedded in equipment to produce simple beep sounds. One device from CUI has this rating on it.

sound pressure level 93 dB/w ±3dB 0.1 w 5 cm ave. at 0.6K, 0.8K, 1K, 1..2K Hz

The dB/w rating makes no sense to me unless it is apples and oranges perhaps. Are they saying it will produce 93 dB of sound when driven with 1 watt perhaps? But then they mention 0.1 w. Is 0.1 watt the power input to get 93 dB of sound at 5 cm?

They often specify the frequency response by a number at the high end and Fo at the low end which seems to be the resonant frequency rather than a -3 dB point.

I\'m trying to find something that will reproduce sounds down to C4 (middle C ~250 Hz) along with a few harmonics with a reasonably easy method of mounting and not eat up too much space.

--

Rick C.

- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Joe Gwinn]

On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 14:04:48 -0700 (PDT), Ricketty C
<gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

I\'m having trouble understanding the ratings of speakers intended to be embedded in equipment to produce simple beep sounds. One device from CUI has this rating on it.

sound pressure level 93 dB/w ±3dB 0.1 w 5 cm ave. at 0.6K, 0.8K, 1K, 1.2K Hz

The dB/w rating makes no sense to me unless it is apples and oranges perhaps. Are they saying it will produce 93 dB of sound when driven with 1 watt perhaps? But then they mention 0.1 w. Is 0.1 watt the power input to get 93 dB of sound at 5 cm?

They often specify the frequency response by a number at the high end and Fo at the low end which seems to be the resonant frequency rather than a -3 dB point.

I\'m trying to find something that will reproduce sounds down to C4 (middle C ~250 Hz) along with a few harmonics with a reasonably easy method of mounting and not eat up too much space.

Need datasheet.

Joe Gwinn

 

[Ricketty C]

On Friday, September 11, 2020 at 5:30:09 PM UTC-4, Joe Gwinn wrote:

On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 14:04:48 -0700 (PDT), Ricketty C
gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

I\'m having trouble understanding the ratings of speakers intended to be embedded in equipment to produce simple beep sounds. One device from CUI has this rating on it.

sound pressure level 93 dB/w ą3dB 0.1 w 5 cm ave. at 0.6K, 0.8K, 1K, 1.2K Hz

The dB/w rating makes no sense to me unless it is apples and oranges perhaps. Are they saying it will produce 93 dB of sound when driven with 1 watt perhaps? But then they mention 0.1 w. Is 0.1 watt the power input to get 93 dB of sound at 5 cm?

They often specify the frequency response by a number at the high end and Fo at the low end which seems to be the resonant frequency rather than a -3 dB point.

I\'m trying to find something that will reproduce sounds down to C4 (middle C ~250 Hz) along with a few harmonics with a reasonably easy method of mounting and not eat up too much space.

Need datasheet.

Joe Gwinn

https://www.cuidevices.com/product/resource/clf0381mp-1.pdf

--

Rick C.

+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Mark]

On Friday, September 11, 2020 at 3:24:26 PM UTC-7, Ricketty C wrote:

On Friday, September 11, 2020 at 5:30:09 PM UTC-4, Joe Gwinn wrote:
On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 14:04:48 -0700 (PDT), Ricketty C
gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

I\'m having trouble understanding the ratings of speakers intended to be embedded in equipment to produce simple beep sounds. One device from CUI has this rating on it.

sound pressure level 93 dB/w ą3dB 0.1 w 5 cm ave. at 0.6K, 0.8K, 1K, 1.2K Hz

The dB/w rating makes no sense to me unless it is apples and oranges perhaps. Are they saying it will produce 93 dB of sound when driven with 1 watt perhaps? But then they mention 0.1 w. Is 0.1 watt the power input to get 93 dB of sound at 5 cm?

They often specify the frequency response by a number at the high end and Fo at the low end which seems to be the resonant frequency rather than a -3 dB point.

I\'m trying to find something that will reproduce sounds down to C4 (middle C ~250 Hz) along with a few harmonics with a reasonably easy method of mounting and not eat up too much space.

Need datasheet.

Joe Gwinn

https://www.cuidevices.com/product/resource/clf0381mp-1.pdf

--

Rick C.

+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

If you pull this part up on DigiKey, three lines of the detailed specs are:

Efficiency - dBA 93.00
Efficiency - Testing 100mW/500mm
Efficiency - Type Sound Pressure Level (SPL)

That suggests testing was performed at 100 mW drive with the microphone 50 cm away. Measured SPL was 93 dB, A-weighted (103 dB/watt). Seems about right.

-Mark

 

[whit3rd]

On Friday, September 11, 2020 at 2:04:54 PM UTC-7, Ricketty C wrote:

I\'m having trouble understanding the ratings of speakers intended to be embedded in equipment to produce simple beep sounds. One device from CUI has this rating on it.

sound pressure level 93 dB/w ±3dB 0.1 w 5 cm ave. at 0.6K, 0.8K, 1K, 1.2K Hz

The dB/w rating makes no sense to me unless it is apples and oranges perhaps.

I\'m thinking the dB/w rating is for overall efficiency, but actual testing
is done at low power, specfied distance and test frequencies, rather than at
a nominal 1W drive (which might cause harmonic distortion). Your ears
don\'t really want 93 dBspl input.

 

[Phil Allison]

Mark wrote:

===============

If you pull this part up on DigiKey, three lines of the detailed specs are:

Efficiency - dBA 93.00
Efficiency - Testing 100mW/500mm
Efficiency - Type Sound Pressure Level (SPL)

** Fraid that is all nonsense.

The data sheet says the test was done with 100mW input (890mV rms @ 8 ohms) at 5cm from the cone. 1W would be too much power for the tiny thing.

The *calculated* result was 93dB SPL (not A weighted) averaged over 4 frequencies for a distance of 1 metre. Close micing the cone eliminates room effects and works OK for a point source.

So the rated continuous output is 97dB SPL - with 250mW input.
Pulse the drive signal with a 1:4 duty cycle and you can use 1W.


...... Phil

 

[Mark]

On Friday, September 11, 2020 at 11:09:55 PM UTC-7, Phil Allison wrote:

Mark wrote:

===============

If you pull this part up on DigiKey, three lines of the detailed specs are:

Efficiency - dBA 93.00
Efficiency - Testing 100mW/500mm
Efficiency - Type Sound Pressure Level (SPL)

** Fraid that is all nonsense.

The data sheet says the test was done with 100mW input (890mV rms @ 8 ohms) at 5cm from the cone. 1W would be too much power for the tiny thing.

The *calculated* result was 93dB SPL (not A weighted) averaged over 4 frequencies for a distance of 1 metre. Close micing the cone eliminates room effects and works OK for a point source.

So the rated continuous output is 97dB SPL - with 250mW input.
Pulse the drive signal with a 1:4 duty cycle and you can use 1W.


..... Phil

Good point, don\'t blindly trust numbers assigned to DigiKey\'s fixed categories.

Practical question: 1:4 duty cycle @ 1W is fine from a heat standpoint. Could this little speaker be expected to work without bottoming out? That\'s twice their \"buzz, rattle, etc\" voltage rating.

-Mark

 

[Ricketty C]

On Friday, September 11, 2020 at 6:24:26 PM UTC-4, Ricketty C wrote:

On Friday, September 11, 2020 at 5:30:09 PM UTC-4, Joe Gwinn wrote:
On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 14:04:48 -0700 (PDT), Ricketty C
gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

I\'m having trouble understanding the ratings of speakers intended to be embedded in equipment to produce simple beep sounds. One device from CUI has this rating on it.

sound pressure level 93 dB/w ą3dB 0.1 w 5 cm ave. at 0.6K, 0.8K, 1K, 1.2K Hz

The dB/w rating makes no sense to me unless it is apples and oranges perhaps. Are they saying it will produce 93 dB of sound when driven with 1 watt perhaps? But then they mention 0.1 w. Is 0.1 watt the power input to get 93 dB of sound at 5 cm?

They often specify the frequency response by a number at the high end and Fo at the low end which seems to be the resonant frequency rather than a -3 dB point.

I\'m trying to find something that will reproduce sounds down to C4 (middle C ~250 Hz) along with a few harmonics with a reasonably easy method of mounting and not eat up too much space.

Need datasheet.

Joe Gwinn

https://www.cuidevices.com/product/resource/clf0381mp-1.pdf

Can anyone explain why the frequency response graph has two Y axis scales, both in dB but with a 2:1 ratio, but claiming the zero reference point is 60 dB?

These things seem to be evaluated under very different conditions. Some SPL numbers are for 500 mm, others 100 mm and others for 10 mm. One device is rated using an IEC 318 coupler which the speaker clamps into. This is all from just one manufacturer!

--

Rick C.

-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Phil Allison]

Ricketty C wrote:

---------------------

https://www.cuidevices.com/product/resource/clf0381mp-1.pdf

> Can anyone explain why the frequency response graph has two Y axis scales, both in dB but with a 2:1 ratio, but claiming the zero reference point is 60 dB?

** The pen recorder has two sensitivity ranges, 25 dB and 50 dB to suit particular purposes. The table tells you which it is and the offset in this case is 60dB above zero dB SPL.


> These things seem to be evaluated under very different conditions. Some SPL numbers are for 500 mm, others 100 mm and others for 10 mm. One device is rated using an IEC 318 coupler which the speaker clamps into. This is all from just one manufacturer!

** The tiny speaker has different uses - enclosed or not and even part of a
headphone. The 318 coupler is an artificial ear.

https://www.bksv.com/en/products/transducers/ear-simulators/ear-mouth-simulators/4153


...... Phil

 

[Ricketty C]

On Saturday, September 12, 2020 at 8:05:15 PM UTC-4, Phil Allison wrote:

Ricketty C wrote:

---------------------

https://www.cuidevices.com/product/resource/clf0381mp-1.pdf

Can anyone explain why the frequency response graph has two Y axis scales, both in dB but with a 2:1 ratio, but claiming the zero reference point is 60 dB?

** The pen recorder has two sensitivity ranges, 25 dB and 50 dB to suit particular purposes. The table tells you which it is and the offset in this case is 60dB above zero dB SPL.


These things seem to be evaluated under very different conditions. Some SPL numbers are for 500 mm, others 100 mm and others for 10 mm. One device is rated using an IEC 318 coupler which the speaker clamps into. This is all from just one manufacturer!

** The tiny speaker has different uses - enclosed or not and even part of a
headphone. The 318 coupler is an artificial ear.

https://www.bksv.com/en/products/transducers/ear-simulators/ear-mouth-simulators/4153

Yes, I saw that, but this is not going in any ears other than an elephant\'s perhaps.

https://www.puiaudio.com/media/SpecSheet/AR027150MR-2-R.pdf

An inch in diameter. This is not the same maker, PUI vs. CUI, but PUI has many different testing setups.

I\'m going to ask the mechanical engineer if he is happy trying to mount the CUI disk. The only ones that come with mounting holes are much larger. I guess they expect you to make an opening in your case to mount this. Maybe it can be stuck to the board with double sided tape. I\'m tired of looking at speakers that don\'t do what I need. This one is close enough. A 260 Hz fundamental is -12 dB down from the resonance, so within the ±15 dB specified. The fundamental is stronger anyway, so this should work ok. Now I just have to figure out how to drive 8 ohms without too much power loss. I\'d sure rather have a 32 ohm speaker.

This one is interesting. The data sheet didn\'t give a resonant frequency. I find the frequency ratings are often fantasy if they give a curve. The PUI web site says the resonant frequency is 300 Hz which should work ok for the 260 Hz fundamental. It will be much easier to drive with lower current if I can believe the specs.

https://www.puiaudio.com/products/AR03032MR-R

Still not easy to mount compared to the surface mount transducers someone had originally picked, but at least it\'s not larger than the PCB.

Thanks for the advice.

--

Rick C.

-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Phil Allison]

Ricketty C wrote:

================>

I\'m tired of looking at speakers that don\'t do what I need.

** And misinterpreting the data cos you know sweet FA about audio.

This one is close enough. A 260 Hz fundamental is -12 dB down
from the resonance, so within the ±15 dB specified.

** The low end roll off you see graphed is *because* of having NO enclosure - not even a baffle. Add either and the difference is huge.


> This one is interesting. The data sheet didn\'t give a resonant frequency.

** Because essential there is not one - headphone drivers and dynamic mic inserts are damn near flat impedance.

> I find the frequency ratings are often fantasy if they give a curve.

** I have fantasies about curves too ....

The PUI web site says the resonant frequency is 300 Hz which should work ok for the 260 Hz fundamental. It will be much easier to drive with lower current if I can believe the specs.

** No faith required, just basic audio knowledge.

The makers have assumed anyone buying such items has that.

Shame about arrogant jerks off like you.


..... Phil

 

[Ricketty C]

On Sunday, September 13, 2020 at 12:08:00 AM UTC-4, Phil Allison wrote:

Ricketty C wrote:

================
I\'m tired of looking at speakers that don\'t do what I need.


** And misinterpreting the data cos you know sweet FA about audio.

This one is close enough. A 260 Hz fundamental is -12 dB down
from the resonance, so within the ±15 dB specified.

** The low end roll off you see graphed is *because* of having NO enclosure - not even a baffle. Add either and the difference is huge.


This one is interesting. The data sheet didn\'t give a resonant frequency.

** Because essential there is not one - headphone drivers and dynamic mic inserts are damn near flat impedance.

I find the frequency ratings are often fantasy if they give a curve.

** I have fantasies about curves too ....

The PUI web site says the resonant frequency is 300 Hz which should work ok for the 260 Hz fundamental. It will be much easier to drive with lower current if I can believe the specs.


** No faith required, just basic audio knowledge.

The makers have assumed anyone buying such items has that.

Shame about arrogant jerks off like you.


..... Phil

Geeze, it didn\'t take much this time. Or maybe I made a mistake of thanking you. No, the mistake clearly was conversing with you. Yup. That was it.. lol No one can say you aren\'t entertaining.

But after a while it does get old. I\'m not actually looking forward to the tired string of profanities that will be the response to this post.

Have you ever come up with any new insults or profanities? Do you have a set list you pick from? Sort of like one of those dolls with the pull string that play a different track from a record each time it is pulled. Yeah, that\'s pretty much what you are Phil. A Chatty Cathy doll... with profanities

--

Rick C.

+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Phil Allison]

Ricketty C wrote:

====================>

I\'m tired of looking at speakers that don\'t do what I need.


** And misinterpreting the data cos you know sweet FA about audio.

This one is close enough. A 260 Hz fundamental is -12 dB down
from the resonance, so within the ±15 dB specified.

** The low end roll off you see graphed is *because* of having NO enclosure - not even a baffle. Add either and the difference is huge.


This one is interesting. The data sheet didn\'t give a resonant frequency.

** Because essential there is not one - headphone drivers and dynamic mic inserts are damn near flat impedance.

I find the frequency ratings are often fantasy if they give a curve.

** I have fantasies about curves too ....

The PUI web site says the resonant frequency is 300 Hz which should work ok for the 260 Hz fundamental. It will be much easier to drive with lower current if I can believe the specs.


** No faith required, just basic audio knowledge.

The makers have assumed anyone buying such items has that.

Shame about arrogant jerk offs like you.


..... Phil

Geeze, it didn\'t take much this time.
Or maybe I made a mistake of thanking you.
No, the mistake clearly was conversing with you.
Yup. That was it.

** Odd Mr C. does not think he deserves the tile \"arrogant jerk off \"?

Then goes posting even more proof that it was clearly FAIR COMMENT.

Guess he never learnt how to take criticism over his appalling manners as a kid - indulgent, narcissistic parents at play here for sure.

Just threw giant tantrums and got what he wanted -every time.

Jerk offs just gonna jerk.


...... Phil

 

[Ricketty C]

On Sunday, September 13, 2020 at 3:18:39 AM UTC-4, Phil Allison wrote:

Ricketty C wrote:

====================

I\'m tired of looking at speakers that don\'t do what I need.


** And misinterpreting the data cos you know sweet FA about audio.

This one is close enough. A 260 Hz fundamental is -12 dB down
from the resonance, so within the ±15 dB specified.

** The low end roll off you see graphed is *because* of having NO enclosure - not even a baffle. Add either and the difference is huge.


This one is interesting. The data sheet didn\'t give a resonant frequency.

** Because essential there is not one - headphone drivers and dynamic mic inserts are damn near flat impedance.

I find the frequency ratings are often fantasy if they give a curve.

** I have fantasies about curves too ....

The PUI web site says the resonant frequency is 300 Hz which should work ok for the 260 Hz fundamental. It will be much easier to drive with lower current if I can believe the specs.


** No faith required, just basic audio knowledge.

The makers have assumed anyone buying such items has that.

Shame about arrogant jerk offs like you.


..... Phil

Geeze, it didn\'t take much this time.
Or maybe I made a mistake of thanking you.
No, the mistake clearly was conversing with you.
Yup. That was it.



** Odd Mr C. does not think he deserves the tile \"arrogant jerk off \"?

Then goes posting even more proof that it was clearly FAIR COMMENT.

Guess he never learnt how to take criticism over his appalling manners as a kid - indulgent, narcissistic parents at play here for sure.

Just threw giant tantrums and got what he wanted -every time.

Jerk offs just gonna jerk.

And then he starts talking about himself in the second person. Very, very odd.

It really is funny that Phil insists in behaving this way. I wonder what sort of mental disability he has. Virtually everyone in the group acknowledges he has this malfunction. They just excuse it because Phil has some particular knowledge that others don\'t. That results in reinforcing his behavior.

You know he can\'t behave this way with the general public. He would have been banned from every store in town if he did. So clearly his disability is limited to online groups. Too bad for us.

Too bad he isn\'t capable of giving actual useful advice instead of insults too.

--

Rick C.

++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Phil Allison]

Ricketty Cunt = utter child & vile moron wrote:
==============================================

Too bad he isn\'t capable of giving actual useful advice instead of
insults too.

** My posts are always chock full of useful advice - particularly the one directed to you just now. What a waste of my precious time doing that.

That vile, retarded, autistic fuckwits like you are do not comprehend the value of such good advice is just too damn bad.

For the rest of your stinking life, you will be nothing but pox on the face of the earth and a piece of putrid human garbage.





..... Phil

 

[Ricketty C]

On Sunday, September 13, 2020 at 11:03:41 AM UTC-4, Phil Allison wrote:

Ricketty Cunt = utter child & vile moron wrote:
=============================================

Too bad he isn\'t capable of giving actual useful advice instead of
insults too.



** My posts are always chock full of useful advice - particularly the one directed to you just now. What a waste of my precious time doing that.

That vile, retarded, autistic fuckwits like you are do not comprehend the value of such good advice is just too damn bad.

For the rest of your stinking life, you will be nothing but pox on the face of the earth and a piece of putrid human garbage.

There is often some technical content that may or may not be useful, but your posts are predominately the ranting of a mentally disturbed person. There is just something wrong with a person who can\'t help but make post after post after post chock full of ranting profanities and insults. Nothing about that is \"useful\" and that is probably some 90% of what you post.

I truly feel sorry for you.

--

Rick C.

--- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Michael Kellett]

On 11/09/2020 22:04, Ricketty C wrote:

I\'m having trouble understanding the ratings of speakers intended to be embedded in equipment to produce simple beep sounds. One device from CUI has this rating on it.

sound pressure level 93 dB/w ±3dB 0.1 w 5 cm ave. at 0.6K, 0.8K, 1K, 1.2K Hz

The dB/w rating makes no sense to me unless it is apples and oranges perhaps. Are they saying it will produce 93 dB of sound when driven with 1 watt perhaps? But then they mention 0.1 w. Is 0.1 watt the power input to get 93 dB of sound at 5 cm?

They often specify the frequency response by a number at the high end and Fo at the low end which seems to be the resonant frequency rather than a -3 dB point.

I\'m trying to find something that will reproduce sounds down to C4 (middle C ~250 Hz) along with a few harmonics with a reasonably easy method of mounting and not eat up too much space.

Here\'s a link that shows how the pros do it !

A small loudspeaker in a box - the enclosure will make a difference, the
ratings are legible on the speaker.

Not suggesting you use this, but it may help you choose a suitable part.
I think the parts you are looking at will not be loud enough at 250Hz ish.



https://www.ebay.com/itm/BMW-Door-Chime-Gong-Buzzer-Speaker-65818350349-8360995-E38-E39-E46-E53-Pigtail/274366055524?epid=1011157301&hash=item3fe17dc464:g:4DQAAOSw-2xevZ8f


MK

 

[Ricketty C]

On Monday, September 14, 2020 at 4:43:03 AM UTC-4, Michael Kellett wrote:

On 11/09/2020 22:04, Ricketty C wrote:
I\'m having trouble understanding the ratings of speakers intended to be embedded in equipment to produce simple beep sounds. One device from CUI has this rating on it.

sound pressure level 93 dB/w ±3dB 0.1 w 5 cm ave. at 0.6K, 0.8K, 1K, 1.2K Hz

The dB/w rating makes no sense to me unless it is apples and oranges perhaps. Are they saying it will produce 93 dB of sound when driven with 1 watt perhaps? But then they mention 0.1 w. Is 0.1 watt the power input to get 93 dB of sound at 5 cm?

They often specify the frequency response by a number at the high end and Fo at the low end which seems to be the resonant frequency rather than a -3 dB point.

I\'m trying to find something that will reproduce sounds down to C4 (middle C ~250 Hz) along with a few harmonics with a reasonably easy method of mounting and not eat up too much space.


Here\'s a link that shows how the pros do it !

A small loudspeaker in a box - the enclosure will make a difference, the
ratings are legible on the speaker.

Not suggesting you use this, but it may help you choose a suitable part.
I think the parts you are looking at will not be loud enough at 250Hz ish..



https://www.ebay.com/itm/BMW-Door-Chime-Gong-Buzzer-Speaker-65818350349-8360995-E38-E39-E46-E53-Pigtail/274366055524?epid=1011157301&hash=item3fe17dc464:g:4DQAAOSw-2xevZ8f


MK

Thanks,

This is the one I\'m currently looking at. Phil says the frequency response of such units is fairly flat, but if it\'s made for headphones, maybe the max volume won\'t be loud enough.

https://www.puiaudio.com/products/AR03032MR-R

It claims 115 dBA at 1 cm so 95 dbA at 10 cm with 1 mW input, 20 mW rated input level, 30 mW max.

Am I totally missing the point with this device? 95 dBA should be plenty loud for our purposes.

--

Rick C.

--+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209