Bilavideo
Caution: Incomplete trades.
- Joined
- Feb 29, 2008
- Posts
- 3,101
- Likes
- 128
Quote:
Yes. Assuming they are wired properly, it's easier for two speakers to handle the same load as one speaker. One graph often used in connection with speaker performance is the impedence graph showing the point at which the driver's impedence spikes at the load presented it. If you double the speakers, you effectively half that load, allowing the two speakers to handle up to twice the load short of producing that same impedence spike.
Quote:
I'm not an engineer, nor is my position based on number crunching. I suppose an argument could be made that multiple drivers multiply issues, including impedence. I don't, however, have any experience that would lead me to that conclusion. On the contrary, as long as the wiring and the placement didn't produce phase issues, I've always found that several drivers sound better than one, even when those drivers were simply duplicating the same frequency band.
To be perfectly candid, I won't be able to speak from experience until I've done what I'm talking about doing. I have, however, noticed that when I wired up the CI-22955 and the TWFK together, I got a lot more SPL. This accords to a big difference in output I'd noticed between my UM3Xs and my PFEs. While the PFEs sounded great, the UM3Xs naturally blew the doors off - in terms of output at the same level of current. The PFE has a sensitivity of 107 dB at 1 mW, with an impedence of 32 ohms. The UM3X has a sensitivity of 124 dB at 1 mW, with an impedence of 56 ohms. What's the deal??
Given its use of a crossover circuit involving an SMD crossover cap and inductor combo, I'm not surprised that the UM3X has a greater impedence. It's also possible that multiple drivers add to the impedence issues. But the UM3X clearly has a much greater sensitivity (124 dB vs. 107 dB for the PFE). Running A/B tests between the two, I found the difference overwhelming, so much so that I'm inclined to think that doubling drivers improves sound, even if the drivers are covering the same frequency band.
With respect to the six-driver issue, it should be kept in mind that the TWFK is a "dual driver" in a somewhat nuanced way. There's only one soundport and only one set of pads can be wired up at a time (The second set are merely there for convenience in wiring). When you pair up a CI-22955 with a TWFK, you're really pairing two drivers but getting credit for three. By the same measure, a "super six" using these drivers is really made up of four actual drivers. Even though it's probably the largest of the KA drivers, the CI-22955 is still so much that you could pack a pair into an eartip. In the meantime, the TWFK's, which are much smaller than the CI-22955, can be packed in a pair without really making the package that much larger.
| Originally Posted by meraj.salek /img/forum/go_quote.gif But then as you keep paralleling drivers, aren't you lowering the impedance? |
Yes. Assuming they are wired properly, it's easier for two speakers to handle the same load as one speaker. One graph often used in connection with speaker performance is the impedence graph showing the point at which the driver's impedence spikes at the load presented it. If you double the speakers, you effectively half that load, allowing the two speakers to handle up to twice the load short of producing that same impedence spike.
Quote:
| Wouldn't driveability become an issue with 6 drivers in parallel? Or are they wired in a series/parallel arrangement? Or am I just missing something? |
I'm not an engineer, nor is my position based on number crunching. I suppose an argument could be made that multiple drivers multiply issues, including impedence. I don't, however, have any experience that would lead me to that conclusion. On the contrary, as long as the wiring and the placement didn't produce phase issues, I've always found that several drivers sound better than one, even when those drivers were simply duplicating the same frequency band.
To be perfectly candid, I won't be able to speak from experience until I've done what I'm talking about doing. I have, however, noticed that when I wired up the CI-22955 and the TWFK together, I got a lot more SPL. This accords to a big difference in output I'd noticed between my UM3Xs and my PFEs. While the PFEs sounded great, the UM3Xs naturally blew the doors off - in terms of output at the same level of current. The PFE has a sensitivity of 107 dB at 1 mW, with an impedence of 32 ohms. The UM3X has a sensitivity of 124 dB at 1 mW, with an impedence of 56 ohms. What's the deal??
Given its use of a crossover circuit involving an SMD crossover cap and inductor combo, I'm not surprised that the UM3X has a greater impedence. It's also possible that multiple drivers add to the impedence issues. But the UM3X clearly has a much greater sensitivity (124 dB vs. 107 dB for the PFE). Running A/B tests between the two, I found the difference overwhelming, so much so that I'm inclined to think that doubling drivers improves sound, even if the drivers are covering the same frequency band.
With respect to the six-driver issue, it should be kept in mind that the TWFK is a "dual driver" in a somewhat nuanced way. There's only one soundport and only one set of pads can be wired up at a time (The second set are merely there for convenience in wiring). When you pair up a CI-22955 with a TWFK, you're really pairing two drivers but getting credit for three. By the same measure, a "super six" using these drivers is really made up of four actual drivers. Even though it's probably the largest of the KA drivers, the CI-22955 is still so much that you could pack a pair into an eartip. In the meantime, the TWFK's, which are much smaller than the CI-22955, can be packed in a pair without really making the package that much larger.
