EM Vs PM Speaker
$begingroup$
Modern Speakers have permanent magnets and are called PM speakers.Permanent magnet materials technology has improved a lot over the last 80 years .Around WW2 EM speakers were common because permanent magnets were not as good as they are today .The old school EM speaker had the usual voice coil and a wound electromagnet where the permanent magnet is today .The electromagnet wasted a lot of power .5 to 10 watts being typical .This DC power burn was often more than the audio output of the radio .Mains radios had electromagnets wound from many turns of very thin fragile copper wire giving a coil DC resistance of about 1000 to 2000 ohms .These coils would fail open circuit meaning that you wont see many of these today .Car radios would also use EM speakers with low resistance EM coils to match to the 6V battery .The car radio EM speakers were more reliable despite the high temps encountered in a car .The Audio output power of these old radios was often lousey by modern standards like 3Watts.The old radios with EM speakers sounded loud despite the low Audio power .Finaly my queation is '' Are EM speakers more efficient in terms of dB per watt than PM speakers ? ''
vintage
asked 4 hours ago
AutisticAutistic
7,44021533
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Modern Speakers have permanent magnets and are called PM speakers.Permanent magnet materials technology has improved a lot over the last 80 years .Around WW2 EM speakers were common because permanent magnets were not as good as they are today .The old school EM speaker had the usual voice coil and a wound electromagnet where the permanent magnet is today .The electromagnet wasted a lot of power .5 to 10 watts being typical .This DC power burn was often more than the audio output of the radio .Mains radios had electromagnets wound from many turns of very thin fragile copper wire giving a coil DC resistance of about 1000 to 2000 ohms .These coils would fail open circuit meaning that you wont see many of these today .Car radios would also use EM speakers with low resistance EM coils to match to the 6V battery .The car radio EM speakers were more reliable despite the high temps encountered in a car .The Audio output power of these old radios was often lousey by modern standards like 3Watts.The old radios with EM speakers sounded loud despite the low Audio power .Finaly my queation is '' Are EM speakers more efficient in terms of dB per watt than PM speakers ? ''
vintage
asked 4 hours ago
AutisticAutistic
7,44021533
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
They may be better in terms of dB per watt applied to the voice coil if the field generated by the field coil is stronger than the permanent magnet would produce, but the field coil is a static power consumption, so overall efficiency of the system would still be lowered by that, especially at low outputs.
$endgroup$
– Phil G
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
On the radios with EM speakers that I have encountered the EM power Exceeds The voicecoil power .If a PM speaker is installed in place of an existing EM speaker that has died how much more audio power is needed for the same sonic result?
$endgroup$
– Autistic
3 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
If you copy over your text into your favorite word processor, can you see it underlines every single period? This is because space comes AFTER period.
$endgroup$
– winny
2 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Modern Speakers have permanent magnets and are called PM speakers.Permanent magnet materials technology has improved a lot over the last 80 years .Around WW2 EM speakers were common because permanent magnets were not as good as they are today .The old school EM speaker had the usual voice coil and a wound electromagnet where the permanent magnet is today .The electromagnet wasted a lot of power .5 to 10 watts being typical .This DC power burn was often more than the audio output of the radio .Mains radios had electromagnets wound from many turns of very thin fragile copper wire giving a coil DC resistance of about 1000 to 2000 ohms .These coils would fail open circuit meaning that you wont see many of these today .Car radios would also use EM speakers with low resistance EM coils to match to the 6V battery .The car radio EM speakers were more reliable despite the high temps encountered in a car .The Audio output power of these old radios was often lousey by modern standards like 3Watts.The old radios with EM speakers sounded loud despite the low Audio power .Finaly my queation is '' Are EM speakers more efficient in terms of dB per watt than PM speakers ? ''
vintage
asked 4 hours ago
AutisticAutistic
7,44021533
$endgroup$
Modern Speakers have permanent magnets and are called PM speakers.Permanent magnet materials technology has improved a lot over the last 80 years .Around WW2 EM speakers were common because permanent magnets were not as good as they are today .The old school EM speaker had the usual voice coil and a wound electromagnet where the permanent magnet is today .The electromagnet wasted a lot of power .5 to 10 watts being typical .This DC power burn was often more than the audio output of the radio .Mains radios had electromagnets wound from many turns of very thin fragile copper wire giving a coil DC resistance of about 1000 to 2000 ohms .These coils would fail open circuit meaning that you wont see many of these today .Car radios would also use EM speakers with low resistance EM coils to match to the 6V battery .The car radio EM speakers were more reliable despite the high temps encountered in a car .The Audio output power of these old radios was often lousey by modern standards like 3Watts.The old radios with EM speakers sounded loud despite the low Audio power .Finaly my queation is '' Are EM speakers more efficient in terms of dB per watt than PM speakers ? ''
vintage
vintage
asked 4 hours ago
AutisticAutistic
7,44021533
asked 4 hours ago
AutisticAutistic
7,44021533
asked 4 hours ago
AutisticAutistic
7,44021533
asked 4 hours ago
AutisticAutistic
7,44021533
asked 4 hours ago
AutisticAutistic
7,44021533
7,44021533
1
$begingroup$
They may be better in terms of dB per watt applied to the voice coil if the field generated by the field coil is stronger than the permanent magnet would produce, but the field coil is a static power consumption, so overall efficiency of the system would still be lowered by that, especially at low outputs.
$endgroup$
– Phil G
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
On the radios with EM speakers that I have encountered the EM power Exceeds The voicecoil power .If a PM speaker is installed in place of an existing EM speaker that has died how much more audio power is needed for the same sonic result?
$endgroup$
– Autistic
3 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
If you copy over your text into your favorite word processor, can you see it underlines every single period? This is because space comes AFTER period.
$endgroup$
– winny
2 hours ago
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
They may be better in terms of dB per watt applied to the voice coil if the field generated by the field coil is stronger than the permanent magnet would produce, but the field coil is a static power consumption, so overall efficiency of the system would still be lowered by that, especially at low outputs.
$endgroup$
– Phil G
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
On the radios with EM speakers that I have encountered the EM power Exceeds The voicecoil power .If a PM speaker is installed in place of an existing EM speaker that has died how much more audio power is needed for the same sonic result?
$endgroup$
– Autistic
3 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
If you copy over your text into your favorite word processor, can you see it underlines every single period? This is because space comes AFTER period.
$endgroup$
– winny
2 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
They may be better in terms of dB per watt applied to the voice coil if the field generated by the field coil is stronger than the permanent magnet would produce, but the field coil is a static power consumption, so overall efficiency of the system would still be lowered by that, especially at low outputs.
$endgroup$
– Phil G
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
They may be better in terms of dB per watt applied to the voice coil if the field generated by the field coil is stronger than the permanent magnet would produce, but the field coil is a static power consumption, so overall efficiency of the system would still be lowered by that, especially at low outputs.
$endgroup$
– Phil G
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
On the radios with EM speakers that I have encountered the EM power Exceeds The voicecoil power .If a PM speaker is installed in place of an existing EM speaker that has died how much more audio power is needed for the same sonic result?
$endgroup$
– Autistic
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
On the radios with EM speakers that I have encountered the EM power Exceeds The voicecoil power .If a PM speaker is installed in place of an existing EM speaker that has died how much more audio power is needed for the same sonic result?
$endgroup$
– Autistic
3 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
If you copy over your text into your favorite word processor, can you see it underlines every single period? This is because space comes AFTER period.
$endgroup$
– winny
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
If you copy over your text into your favorite word processor, can you see it underlines every single period? This is because space comes AFTER period.
$endgroup$
– winny
2 hours ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Permanent magnet materials were expensive, and not all that permanent, back in the 1930s, capable of losing their magnetic strength under shock or other abuse, or even heat - which was common in a valve radio. This made the electromagnetic field generator a cheaper and more reliable option.
But that's not the real reason they were so ubiquitous.
The HT power supply for the radio (about 250-350V at 50-100mA) needed low pass filtering after rectification, to eliminate mains hum (ripple voltage). And large value high voltage electrolytic capacitors were expensive.
The solution was a choke - a large inductor in the 10 to 100 Henry range, forming a low pass Pi filter between 2 relatively low value (10 to 30 uF) capacitors.
And the most economical place to wind that choke was ... the loudspeaker's field coil, where the DC component of the rectified current also provided the speaker's magnetic field.
So, far from being wasteful, the EM loudspeaker could do 2 jobs at once.
(Oh, and don't underestimate 2 or 3 watts in a nice large 8 or 10 inch paper cone loudspeaker. They still are plenty loud enough)
answered 2 hours ago
Brian DrummondBrian Drummond
47.7k138108
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["\$", "\$"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("schematics", function () {
StackExchange.schematics.init();
});
}, "cicuitlab");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "135"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2felectronics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f423864%2fem-vs-pm-speaker%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Permanent magnet materials were expensive, and not all that permanent, back in the 1930s, capable of losing their magnetic strength under shock or other abuse, or even heat - which was common in a valve radio. This made the electromagnetic field generator a cheaper and more reliable option.
But that's not the real reason they were so ubiquitous.
The HT power supply for the radio (about 250-350V at 50-100mA) needed low pass filtering after rectification, to eliminate mains hum (ripple voltage). And large value high voltage electrolytic capacitors were expensive.
The solution was a choke - a large inductor in the 10 to 100 Henry range, forming a low pass Pi filter between 2 relatively low value (10 to 30 uF) capacitors.
And the most economical place to wind that choke was ... the loudspeaker's field coil, where the DC component of the rectified current also provided the speaker's magnetic field.
So, far from being wasteful, the EM loudspeaker could do 2 jobs at once.
(Oh, and don't underestimate 2 or 3 watts in a nice large 8 or 10 inch paper cone loudspeaker. They still are plenty loud enough)
answered 2 hours ago
Brian DrummondBrian Drummond
47.7k138108
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Permanent magnet materials were expensive, and not all that permanent, back in the 1930s, capable of losing their magnetic strength under shock or other abuse, or even heat - which was common in a valve radio. This made the electromagnetic field generator a cheaper and more reliable option.
But that's not the real reason they were so ubiquitous.
The HT power supply for the radio (about 250-350V at 50-100mA) needed low pass filtering after rectification, to eliminate mains hum (ripple voltage). And large value high voltage electrolytic capacitors were expensive.
The solution was a choke - a large inductor in the 10 to 100 Henry range, forming a low pass Pi filter between 2 relatively low value (10 to 30 uF) capacitors.
And the most economical place to wind that choke was ... the loudspeaker's field coil, where the DC component of the rectified current also provided the speaker's magnetic field.
So, far from being wasteful, the EM loudspeaker could do 2 jobs at once.
(Oh, and don't underestimate 2 or 3 watts in a nice large 8 or 10 inch paper cone loudspeaker. They still are plenty loud enough)
answered 2 hours ago
Brian DrummondBrian Drummond
47.7k138108
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Permanent magnet materials were expensive, and not all that permanent, back in the 1930s, capable of losing their magnetic strength under shock or other abuse, or even heat - which was common in a valve radio. This made the electromagnetic field generator a cheaper and more reliable option.
But that's not the real reason they were so ubiquitous.
The HT power supply for the radio (about 250-350V at 50-100mA) needed low pass filtering after rectification, to eliminate mains hum (ripple voltage). And large value high voltage electrolytic capacitors were expensive.
The solution was a choke - a large inductor in the 10 to 100 Henry range, forming a low pass Pi filter between 2 relatively low value (10 to 30 uF) capacitors.
And the most economical place to wind that choke was ... the loudspeaker's field coil, where the DC component of the rectified current also provided the speaker's magnetic field.
So, far from being wasteful, the EM loudspeaker could do 2 jobs at once.
(Oh, and don't underestimate 2 or 3 watts in a nice large 8 or 10 inch paper cone loudspeaker. They still are plenty loud enough)
answered 2 hours ago
Brian DrummondBrian Drummond
47.7k138108
$endgroup$
Permanent magnet materials were expensive, and not all that permanent, back in the 1930s, capable of losing their magnetic strength under shock or other abuse, or even heat - which was common in a valve radio. This made the electromagnetic field generator a cheaper and more reliable option.
But that's not the real reason they were so ubiquitous.
The HT power supply for the radio (about 250-350V at 50-100mA) needed low pass filtering after rectification, to eliminate mains hum (ripple voltage). And large value high voltage electrolytic capacitors were expensive.
The solution was a choke - a large inductor in the 10 to 100 Henry range, forming a low pass Pi filter between 2 relatively low value (10 to 30 uF) capacitors.
And the most economical place to wind that choke was ... the loudspeaker's field coil, where the DC component of the rectified current also provided the speaker's magnetic field.
So, far from being wasteful, the EM loudspeaker could do 2 jobs at once.
(Oh, and don't underestimate 2 or 3 watts in a nice large 8 or 10 inch paper cone loudspeaker. They still are plenty loud enough)
answered 2 hours ago
Brian DrummondBrian Drummond
47.7k138108
edited 2 hours ago
answered 2 hours ago
Brian DrummondBrian Drummond
47.7k138108
answered 2 hours ago
Brian DrummondBrian Drummond
47.7k138108
answered 2 hours ago
Brian DrummondBrian Drummond
47.7k138108
47.7k138108
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Electrical Engineering Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2felectronics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f423864%2fem-vs-pm-speaker%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
$begingroup$
They may be better in terms of dB per watt applied to the voice coil if the field generated by the field coil is stronger than the permanent magnet would produce, but the field coil is a static power consumption, so overall efficiency of the system would still be lowered by that, especially at low outputs.
$endgroup$
– Phil G
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
On the radios with EM speakers that I have encountered the EM power Exceeds The voicecoil power .If a PM speaker is installed in place of an existing EM speaker that has died how much more audio power is needed for the same sonic result?
$endgroup$
– Autistic
3 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
If you copy over your text into your favorite word processor, can you see it underlines every single period? This is because space comes AFTER period.
$endgroup$
– winny
2 hours ago