DanielT
Major Contributor
Benefit from AES 2-1984 vs IEC standard 60268 plus information on Maximum Power Handling?
This is how AES 2-1984 is defined:
The existing standard AES 2-1984 defines the peak displacement Xmax in 4.3.2 Large-Signal Parameters:
"(2) Voice-coil peak displacement at which the" linearity "of the motor deviates by 10%. Linearity may be measured by percent distortion of the input current or by percent deviation of displacement versus input current. Manufacturer shall state method used. The measurement shall be made in free air at fS. "
Okay, but what does that say in practice? Let me take an example.
AES Power Handling (1): 150 W
2 Hours Test According to AES 2-1984 Rev. 2003
Okay so 150 W deviations of 10%. It seems to be a reasonable standard to use or what do you think?
But the same element has:
Maximum Power Handling (2): 300 W
Maximum power is defined as 3dB greater than nominal power
Well, what is the use of that information? Between 150-300 W for that Faital Pro element, what does it mean in the form of deviations in the form of linearity and distortion?
Now 150 W plus Sensitivity (1W / 1m): 96 dB is more than enough for me, but I'm still curious.
Aha, regarding that standard:
Comment from Klippel, 2003-02-24
The critical review of the numerical simulation on a fictitious loudspeaker and practical measurements on real loudspeakers (see AES preprint 5508) show that the method in AES2-1984 does not provide a clear and useful definition of Xmax. This is mainly caused by some ambiguities in the wording and more importantly by using assumptions, which are not valid in theory and practice. Clearly, the measurement of harmonic distortion is not sufficient for assessing all important aspects of the large signal performance. Nonlinearities inherent in transducers such as force factor Bl(x), inductance Le(x) and Doppler effect produce significant modulation distortion. The current IEC standard 60268 provides all of the methods required for assessing these kinds of distortion and for defining Xmax more clearly and reliably:
60268 Sound system equipment, and 60268-5 regarding speakers see attached pictures.
So AES 2-1984 does not make sense to start from, or?
This is how AES 2-1984 is defined:
The existing standard AES 2-1984 defines the peak displacement Xmax in 4.3.2 Large-Signal Parameters:
"(2) Voice-coil peak displacement at which the" linearity "of the motor deviates by 10%. Linearity may be measured by percent distortion of the input current or by percent deviation of displacement versus input current. Manufacturer shall state method used. The measurement shall be made in free air at fS. "
Comments on reaffirmation of AES2-1984 (r1997)
Information on current and recent Calls for Comment is shown in these bulletins.
www.aes.org
Okay, but what does that say in practice? Let me take an example.
10FE200 (8Ω) by FaitalPRO
FaitalPRO combined the latest R&D methods and technologies with the most advanced industrial automation techniques and all FaitalPRO drivers are made in Italy with the highest level of quality, consistency and durability.
faitalpro.com
AES Power Handling (1): 150 W
2 Hours Test According to AES 2-1984 Rev. 2003
Okay so 150 W deviations of 10%. It seems to be a reasonable standard to use or what do you think?
But the same element has:
Maximum Power Handling (2): 300 W
Maximum power is defined as 3dB greater than nominal power
Well, what is the use of that information? Between 150-300 W for that Faital Pro element, what does it mean in the form of deviations in the form of linearity and distortion?
Now 150 W plus Sensitivity (1W / 1m): 96 dB is more than enough for me, but I'm still curious.
Aha, regarding that standard:
Comment from Klippel, 2003-02-24
The critical review of the numerical simulation on a fictitious loudspeaker and practical measurements on real loudspeakers (see AES preprint 5508) show that the method in AES2-1984 does not provide a clear and useful definition of Xmax. This is mainly caused by some ambiguities in the wording and more importantly by using assumptions, which are not valid in theory and practice. Clearly, the measurement of harmonic distortion is not sufficient for assessing all important aspects of the large signal performance. Nonlinearities inherent in transducers such as force factor Bl(x), inductance Le(x) and Doppler effect produce significant modulation distortion. The current IEC standard 60268 provides all of the methods required for assessing these kinds of distortion and for defining Xmax more clearly and reliably:
60268 Sound system equipment, and 60268-5 regarding speakers see attached pictures.
So AES 2-1984 does not make sense to start from, or?
Attachments
Last edited: