Post by duty-honor-countryPost by d***@cartchunk.orgPost by duty-honor-countryPete- the magnets on those woofers weigh several POUNDS.
You better have 2 hands on them when you pick them up too.
Magnet weight is in fact, a poor indication of quality and
design integrity. The material used for those magnets,
a barium or strontium ferrite ceramic, is not particularily
expensive. There's an important rule about loudspeaker
"The right amount of magnet is the right
amount of magnet."
That means that a magnet can be too large as easily as it
can be too small.
Basically, you cannot judge the quality of a speaker by
how many hands it takes to lift it. It's possible (and, given
the type of system you're talking about, not unlikely at all),
that despite the size of the magnet, the actual flux density
in the voice coil gap and the volume of the voice coil gap
is fairly low.
I asked for the efficiency rating of the speakers, not the value, or
your (misinformed) opinion on magnet size
So, you are better informed on the design and implementation
of magnet systems for loudspeakers? If so, could you kindly
point out where, in my post, I am technically "misinformed.,"
as opposed to your blanket, whitewash retort that is devoid
of any technical specifics?
Post by duty-honor-countrybesides, first the magnets are too small, now they're too
big, so which is it ?
"The right amount of magnet is the right amount of magnet."
The right sized magnet is the right sized magnet. You have
provided not a single shred of evidence that the magnets
are anything other than "big." And for a properly designed
loudspeaker, "bigger" DOES NOT tyranslate to "better."
For a loudspeaker to perform correctly for a given design,
the electromagnetic induction ratio, aka, the Bl product,
needs to be the right value, not one higher or lower.
Having, in fact, measured several hundred of exactly the
type of loudspeaker you are describing, speakers which, by
the way, are NOT manufactured by the "label," but rather are
jobbed out to domestic cabinet manufacturers that have
little or no design facilities, are general simply assemblages
of the least expensive set of components available and with
little or no "design." That they have such huge magnets is
immaterial to their performance indeed to their overall
efficiency, for the reasons I stated in my earlier post.
Post by duty-honor-countryyou both have a severe case of contrary-net-itis
No, I have have a case of "tell it like it is," supported by
well over a quarter of a century as a professional designer
in the loudspeaker business. Clearly, that experience is
contrary to yours. Once of the manifestations of that difference
is that I will provide the TECHNICAL reasoning behind my
TECHNICAL assertions, and those assertions can be tested
on their technical merits, as opposed to simple, technically
content free statements such as "(misinformed) opinion on
magnet size," "you better have 2 hands on them when you
pick them up," "speakers DID have bass hit- and that's how
they got it, with huge magnets," and the rest. The last is the
only one with any technical content, and it is provably incorrect.
You may or may not agree with the technical assertions
made, you may or may not, in fact, LIKE the implications
of such assertions: that's certainly your perogative. But I
might kindly suggest you deal with the implecations and
content of the message, and stop blaming the messenger
for details of the physical word that may be discordant
with your view of it.