3 ms·

Seems so obvious once described. It doesn’t explain how well the tiny domes reproduce low frequency sound, since they displace very little air.

ptha 5y ago
Yes it would be nice to get a some comparison of fidelity, range etc. It mentions high-quality sound. But it does seem more efficient than traditional speaker designs. From the article: They tested their thin-film loudspeaker by mounting it to a wall 30 centimeters from a microphone to measure the sound pressure level, recorded in decibels. When 25 volts of electricity were passed through the device at 1 kilohertz (a rate of 1,000 cycles per second), the speaker produced high-quality sound at conversational levels of 66 decibels. At 10 kilohertz, the sound pressure level increased to 86 decibels, about the same volume level as city traffic. The energy-efficient device only requires about 100 milliwatts of power per square meter of speaker area. By contrast, an average home speaker might consume more than 1 watt of power to generate similar sound pressure at a comparable distance.
- chrisco255 5y ago
  The article has a video of the speaker playing "We Are the Champions" by Queen. It's clearly muffled quite bit, but damn good quality for a paper thin speaker burning just 100mW.
  - martyvis 5y ago
    Actually it's 100mw per square metre, so maybe that small speaker was only a couple of milliwatts
- dotancohen 5y ago
  Sounds perfect for a cellphone. Imagine theater sound - or even a decent loudspeaker conversation.
- buescher 5y ago
  That's a 10db difference in efficiency, which just means it's an efficient speaker, maybe not as efficient as a good horn-loaded speaker.
- eimrine 5y ago
  > But it does seem more efficient than traditional speaker designs. The numbers you have mentioned do not tell that. I have a pair of 4W speakers which can make impossible any dialogue in a 15m^2 room if working on full loudness. The secret is big but lightweight moving parts (diffusor of big square) and absence of bass.

ptha 5y ago

Yes it would be nice to get a some comparison of fidelity, range etc. It mentions high-quality sound. But it does seem more efficient than traditional speaker designs. From the article: They tested their thin-film loudspeaker by mounting it to a wall 30 centimeters from a microphone to measure the sound pressure level, recorded in decibels. When 25 volts of electricity were passed through the device at 1 kilohertz (a rate of 1,000 cycles per second), the speaker produced high-quality sound at conversational levels of 66 decibels. At 10 kilohertz, the sound pressure level increased to 86 decibels, about the same volume level as city traffic. The energy-efficient device only requires about 100 milliwatts of power per square meter of speaker area. By contrast, an average home speaker might consume more than 1 watt of power to generate similar sound pressure at a comparable distance.

chrisco255 5y ago
The article has a video of the speaker playing "We Are the Champions" by Queen. It's clearly muffled quite bit, but damn good quality for a paper thin speaker burning just 100mW.
- martyvis 5y ago
  Actually it's 100mw per square metre, so maybe that small speaker was only a couple of milliwatts
dotancohen 5y ago
Sounds perfect for a cellphone. Imagine theater sound - or even a decent loudspeaker conversation.
buescher 5y ago
That's a 10db difference in efficiency, which just means it's an efficient speaker, maybe not as efficient as a good horn-loaded speaker.
eimrine 5y ago
> But it does seem more efficient than traditional speaker designs. The numbers you have mentioned do not tell that. I have a pair of 4W speakers which can make impossible any dialogue in a 15m^2 room if working on full loudness. The secret is big but lightweight moving parts (diffusor of big square) and absence of bass.