Another Audiphile Question:Speaker Question: Inside port, High Pass  filter? - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / projects

author: DW1961
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2020, 11:43:36 pm
content: I'm wondering what this is? It looks like it is attached directly to the tweeter, looking trough the bass port. Also, this speaker says, Maximum Input Power: 30 watts. But I can't believe it is peak power. Chinese company but could not contact the seller. Sounds pretty good though.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2020, 11:56:32 pm
content: Just a simple capacitor high pass filter as a very cheap “crossover” for the tweeter, to keep it from getting all the bass.What is your question about the power?

author: DW1961
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2020, 12:58:07 am
content: Quote from: tooki on August 03, 2020, 11:56:32 pmOh there are no specs on this thing. The only specs are 6 ohms and the owners manual says, "The maximum input power of this speaker is 60 watts (30 per channel). To prevent damage to the speaker, do not supply power in excess of the maximum input power." They don't specify peak/RMS. In fact, they don't give any other specifications. However, compared to my Klipsch R-51M speakers, these put out about the same volume at the same volume control level, so they seem pretty sensitive and sound pretty good for what they are.Is there any problem doing a tweeter like that?

author: bson
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 04, 2020, 01:35:14 am
content: It's probably 30W peak power. If it were anything else (continuous, average) you'd still want to know what the peak power spec is.

author: DW1961
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2020, 04:41:47 am
content: Quote from: bson on August 04, 2020, 01:35:14 amIf it were peak, then wouldn't the manufacturer want people to keep power WAY below 30 watts per speaker? For instance, my Klipsch can handle 85 continuous with 340 peak.I'd rather know the continuous than peak, if I had to choose either one.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2020, 06:00:58 pm
content: But it’s a smaller number, and marketing bozos always want to use the higher number. Serious manufacturers write which kind of power rating it is. Cheap companies use just peak, unspecified, to make themselves look good to consumers who don’t know what peak and rms mean.

author: ejeffrey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2020, 07:17:46 pm
content: Quote from: DW1961 on August 04, 2020, 04:41:47 amIf they wanted the customer to know what the speaker did they would provide a complete spec sheet not just a "30 watt speaker" label.

author: DW1961
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2020, 07:53:31 pm
content: Quote from: ejeffrey on August 04, 2020, 07:17:46 pmWell, ok, but if people take it to mean continuous, and it isn't, they may be replacing a lot of speakers because, "I only have a 30 watt per channel amp."

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2020, 08:15:01 pm
content: No offense to the manufacturers of loudspeakers for the amateur market, but I have been interested in high-fidelity systems since 1966: most of the speaker (and some of the amplifier power ratings) are not to be believed.By now, people may be bored by my insistence that "rms power" is a misnomer. Don't get me started about the misleading "IHF" and fraudulent "+/- 1 dB" power ratings during the psychedelic 1960s.

author: Mr Evil
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2020, 09:54:38 pm
content: Quote from: DW1961 on August 04, 2020, 12:58:07 amThere's nothing inherentlywrongwith using a single capacitor, but the simpler the crossover, the more important it is to choose good quality drivers, and the more difficult it is to get them to add together to produce a flat frequency response. I doubt they've taken the time to do that here, so the speakers probably wouldn't fare very well if you measured them.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2020, 10:12:19 pm
content: Even a simple crossover is better than none, since the tweeter will not take well to being driven by high-level low-frequency signals.

author: DW1961
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2020, 01:10:40 am
content: Quote from: Mr Evil on August 04, 2020, 09:54:38 pmMeasuring them is always important, but what is more important is if they sound good to the listener. Bose consumer systems measure like crap. However, I've owned a few, and yeah WAY over priced, but I always liked the roll off they had, and I didn't fatigue listening to them, ever. But, yes, your point is well taken if not obviousThey are 60 dollar 4" driver speakers.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2020, 09:16:52 am
content: That’s kinda my take on Bose, too. It’s not that they’re bad, it’s just that you can do a lot better for the price. But the Bose sound is very approachable, and honestly, I’ve been known to recommend them to people that I know won’t take the time to go to a serious hi-fi store to audition real gear to find the perfect speaker/headphone, and who aren’t pressed for cash.

author: DW1961
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2020, 05:31:36 am
content: Quote from: tooki on August 05, 2020, 09:16:52 amBack in the 70s, it was different. The Bose 901, which could be argued was not consumer level, was way, way out in front of the competition. I'll tell you a little story.Back around 1981 my friend and I both had Yamaha RD/Daytona 400 two stroke cafe racers. We were out on Friday night, and we were going to his brother in laws to score a joint. So we're tearing down the back roads, and he pulls over about 300 yards from his brother in laws, down the same street. He says, "hey, turn off your bike. So I sitting there thing "WTF, let's go." He says, "Listen. Do you hear it?' And, I'm like, "Uh yea, sound like someone is having a party with a live band." He laughed, and said, yeah, that's Wiggie's (His bro in always nic name) and Kim's (his sister) party. Casey (friend) brought over his 901s he got back in 1968, after he came back from Vietnam."I mean, you could hear those things clearly 300 yards away--no, not the bass, they weren't bass speakers anyway--but the horns of Steely Dan, OMG! I mean, it sounded like live music. If I remember correctly, those old 901s didn't have any peak power or continuous power rating on them. They just said something like "feed them tons of power. The more the louder they will get."LOOK WHAT I FOUND! From the Bose Website, the 1968-72 original Bose spec sheet, or owners' manual, cause you know, this is all you need to F-iing know about the 1968-72 901:901 Direct/Reflecting speaker system: Sold from 1968 - 1973https://assets.bose.com/content/dam/Bose_DAM/Web/consumer_electronics/global/products/speakers/901_DirectReflecting_speaker_system_series1/pdf/owg_en_901_series1.pdfhttps://www.bose.com/en_us/support/products/bose_speakers_support/bose_stereo_support/901_series1.htmlThis is it, not graphs, nothing.

author: DW1961
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2020, 05:42:21 am
content: Quote from: tooki on August 05, 2020, 09:16:52 amJust wanted to sway that Bose does make some crappy quality SHIT too. I owned two of the lifestyle systems. The first one was the shoe box sized Lifestyle 3 (circa1996) I think with one little shoe box "bass module" and two tiny satellite speakers. I still have a set of the speakers in my closet. Damn, those things would crank. However, the receiver part was total crap. Man, you could buy a better CD payer for 20 bucks. Same thing with the 2005 Lifestyle 20 something. Totally crap receiver area, and the speakers weren't even as nice as the older model.Those first generation little satellites/shoebox bass module package really did crank though for their size. I have never understood how Bose cold fake how much bass you were getting out of that little idiot box--lol. My friends were always amazed when they heard them, and that was back when I primarily listened to rock. I probably sold more of those first gen systems than the Bose marketing department, just by playing music when friends would come over. I had the bass module behind the couch, and the satellites camouflaged on the walls. You couldn't see any stereo system at all. They were just paper tweets and a paper woof. Just cheap as crap, but somehow they got some damn big sound out of that little package.But, yeah, the receiver section was just really bad. It operated like a Playskool kid stereo.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2020, 11:21:58 pm
content: Quote from: DW1961 on August 06, 2020, 05:31:36 amThis old article (the part after the modern intro) says each of the 9 speaker drivers in the unit is rated for 30W, so 270W total, and that Bose recommended 20-200W amps:https://www.soundandvision.com/content/flashback-1968-bose-901-speaker-system

author: DW1961
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2020, 01:23:48 am
content: Quote from: tooki on August 06, 2020, 11:21:58 pmInteresting, 20-270 watts. Is that per side? Either way, that's a lot of space for power. Damn. Those things had to be bullet proof.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2020, 12:35:57 pm
content: Per channel. Each speaker had 9 drivers at 30W each.