Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #2   Report Post  
Todd H.
 
Posts: n/a
Default

writes:
I have a question. Someone on a message board I usually post on talked
about woofer speed. I assume what this translates to is frequency
response (ie 1/time=frequency). He also posted a link, which I read:
http://www.adireaudio.com/Files/Tech...ooferSpeed.pdf

Interesting paper. Written apparently by a high school graduate?
Maybe.

At the end of the page it shows a graph, with the frequency response of
the speaker they used. To me, inductance would have little or no effect
on a speaker unless, it were a midrange or a tweeter. And from this
graph, mass still seems to dampen the signal more throught the
frequency range than does the inductor, which is should I would think.
(ie xl=2(pi)(f)(l)) When it does eventually does get to the higher end
the inductor does not seem to cut the signal all that much.
So what I would like to know is, if the inductance is the most
important part, why not make it small, and increase your frequency
response of the speaker? This probably would not effect a woofer all
that much if the woofer was used for bass only or would it? I find it
hard to believe that the mass of the cone has nothing to do with this
at higher frequencies, which is why you cannot use a tweeter for a
woofer.
And by cutting down the inductance would also mean a smaller coil and
maybe larger wire? Wouldn't that be a problem?


Ding! It's a juggling act and there are tradeoffs. Want less
inductance, use fewer turns of wire, but... oops, now you need more
current to achieve the same force to move a given mass with a given
transient response, and ah crap, also need bigger wire to achieve the
now-great power handling requirement, so you use a better magnet, but
that adds cost and/or heft, perhaps more than your target market will
be willing to pay. And so on on.

The paper seems to want to debunk the thought that moving mass isn't
an issue at all in terms woofer transient response, but instead lower
H is more important. I'm guessing this manufactuer's driver have more
mass and less inductance than their competitors--just a wild guess!

Marketeering at work.


However, reviewing the transient response graph on page 5 -- I don't
see significant reasons to draw much of any useful conclusion from it.
And as you tacitly suggested, using a steady state frequency response
analysis, pointing to unaffected high frequency response, and using
that to draw a conclusion on transient response of a given low
frequency driver is hocus pocus science.

And adding mass to the dust cap of a speaker... and ... I don't think
you should trust this paper to draw any sort of useful conclusions at
all.

Trust thy ears.

Best Regards,
--
/"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Todd H
\ / | http://www.toddh.net/
X Promoting good netiquette | http://triplethreatband.com/
/ \ http://www.toddh.net/netiquette/ | "4 lines suffice."
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
common mode rejection vs. crosstalk xy Pro Audio 385 December 29th 04 01:00 AM
Topic Police Steve Jorgensen Pro Audio 85 July 9th 04 11:47 PM
Artists cut out the record biz [email protected] Pro Audio 64 July 9th 04 10:02 PM
DNC Schedule of Events BLCKOUT420 Pro Audio 2 July 8th 04 04:19 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:52 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"