3 ms·
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 d
by ptha 4y 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 4y agoThe 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 4y agoActually it's 100mw per square metre, so maybe that small speaker was only a couple of milliwatts
- dotancohen 4y agoSounds perfect for a cellphone. Imagine theater sound - or even a decent loudspeaker conversation.
- buescher 4y agoThat'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 4y 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.