A Audio and hi-fi forum. AudioBanter

Go Back   Home » AudioBanter forum » rec.audio » Tech
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

reducing Qts



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 5th 04, 10:49 PM
lukasz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default reducing Qts

Hello!!

Can anybody have an idea how to reduce parameter Qts from 0.75 to 0.5
for example?

Regards
Ads
  #2  
Old April 6th 04, 12:53 PM
Dick Pierce
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default reducing Qts

lukasz > wrote in message >.. .
> Hello!!
>
> Can anybody have an idea how to reduce parameter Qts from 0.75 to 0.5
> for example?


That's quite a hefty reduction, and fairly difficult to obtain.
First, why do you need to reduce the Qts of that particular
driver?

Assuming you can't simply use a driver of the right Qts to begin
with, you don't have a lot of choices. As you might know, a
driver's Qts results principally from two other parameters, Qes,
the electrical Q and Qms, the mechanical Q. Both are measures of
the amount of losses, in the former case, from electrical losses,
in the latter from mechanical.

If the driver you has is typical of moderate- to high-quality
woofers, the electrical losses dominate, so that's where you have
to direct most of your effort. While it's generally easier to
increase mechanical losses with little effort, you need large
changes in mechanical loss to get anywhere in reducing the total
loss.

For example, take a typical woofer whose total Qts is 0.75, with
an electrical Qes of about 0.9 and a mechanical Qms of 4.5. If you
wanted to drop the total Qts down to 0.5 simply by dropping the
mechanical Qms, you'd have to drop it from 4.5 to about 1.13 or
a factor of 4, an extraordinary feat, to say the least.

On the other hand, to drop the electrical to get there is not so
easy either. In our example, you'd have to drop the electrical
Qes from 0.9 to 0.56. While it may seem that it's easier to drop
the electrical Q by ONLY a factor of 1.6 vs dropping the mechanical
Q by a factor of 1.6, that much of a drop of electrical Q is really
tough as well.

The electrical Q is dependent upon several parameters, such as the
total series DC resistance and the flux density in the magnetic
gap. It's real tough to reduce the total series DC resistance to
less than that of the voice coil's DC resistance without resorting
to one-off techniques such as building a negative output impedance
amplifier, and it's also real tough to increase the flux density
in the gap, because most magnets run fairly close to the saturation
flux density of the pole piece.

So, without the ability to substantially reduce the DC resistance
or substantially increase the flux density, and given that impossibly
large changes in the mechanical damping are required to get you even
close, you're pretty much stuck: there is no practical way to achieve
the substantial reduction in Qts you're seeking.

Which leads us back to my first question: why do you want to do
this? Is there something otherwise extraordinary about a particular
driver that makes you want to try to fix this parameter instead of
of the much easier course of getting the right driver to begin with?
  #3  
Old April 6th 04, 12:53 PM
Dick Pierce
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default reducing Qts

lukasz > wrote in message >.. .
> Hello!!
>
> Can anybody have an idea how to reduce parameter Qts from 0.75 to 0.5
> for example?


That's quite a hefty reduction, and fairly difficult to obtain.
First, why do you need to reduce the Qts of that particular
driver?

Assuming you can't simply use a driver of the right Qts to begin
with, you don't have a lot of choices. As you might know, a
driver's Qts results principally from two other parameters, Qes,
the electrical Q and Qms, the mechanical Q. Both are measures of
the amount of losses, in the former case, from electrical losses,
in the latter from mechanical.

If the driver you has is typical of moderate- to high-quality
woofers, the electrical losses dominate, so that's where you have
to direct most of your effort. While it's generally easier to
increase mechanical losses with little effort, you need large
changes in mechanical loss to get anywhere in reducing the total
loss.

For example, take a typical woofer whose total Qts is 0.75, with
an electrical Qes of about 0.9 and a mechanical Qms of 4.5. If you
wanted to drop the total Qts down to 0.5 simply by dropping the
mechanical Qms, you'd have to drop it from 4.5 to about 1.13 or
a factor of 4, an extraordinary feat, to say the least.

On the other hand, to drop the electrical to get there is not so
easy either. In our example, you'd have to drop the electrical
Qes from 0.9 to 0.56. While it may seem that it's easier to drop
the electrical Q by ONLY a factor of 1.6 vs dropping the mechanical
Q by a factor of 1.6, that much of a drop of electrical Q is really
tough as well.

The electrical Q is dependent upon several parameters, such as the
total series DC resistance and the flux density in the magnetic
gap. It's real tough to reduce the total series DC resistance to
less than that of the voice coil's DC resistance without resorting
to one-off techniques such as building a negative output impedance
amplifier, and it's also real tough to increase the flux density
in the gap, because most magnets run fairly close to the saturation
flux density of the pole piece.

So, without the ability to substantially reduce the DC resistance
or substantially increase the flux density, and given that impossibly
large changes in the mechanical damping are required to get you even
close, you're pretty much stuck: there is no practical way to achieve
the substantial reduction in Qts you're seeking.

Which leads us back to my first question: why do you want to do
this? Is there something otherwise extraordinary about a particular
driver that makes you want to try to fix this parameter instead of
of the much easier course of getting the right driver to begin with?
  #4  
Old April 6th 04, 12:53 PM
Dick Pierce
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default reducing Qts

lukasz > wrote in message >.. .
> Hello!!
>
> Can anybody have an idea how to reduce parameter Qts from 0.75 to 0.5
> for example?


That's quite a hefty reduction, and fairly difficult to obtain.
First, why do you need to reduce the Qts of that particular
driver?

Assuming you can't simply use a driver of the right Qts to begin
with, you don't have a lot of choices. As you might know, a
driver's Qts results principally from two other parameters, Qes,
the electrical Q and Qms, the mechanical Q. Both are measures of
the amount of losses, in the former case, from electrical losses,
in the latter from mechanical.

If the driver you has is typical of moderate- to high-quality
woofers, the electrical losses dominate, so that's where you have
to direct most of your effort. While it's generally easier to
increase mechanical losses with little effort, you need large
changes in mechanical loss to get anywhere in reducing the total
loss.

For example, take a typical woofer whose total Qts is 0.75, with
an electrical Qes of about 0.9 and a mechanical Qms of 4.5. If you
wanted to drop the total Qts down to 0.5 simply by dropping the
mechanical Qms, you'd have to drop it from 4.5 to about 1.13 or
a factor of 4, an extraordinary feat, to say the least.

On the other hand, to drop the electrical to get there is not so
easy either. In our example, you'd have to drop the electrical
Qes from 0.9 to 0.56. While it may seem that it's easier to drop
the electrical Q by ONLY a factor of 1.6 vs dropping the mechanical
Q by a factor of 1.6, that much of a drop of electrical Q is really
tough as well.

The electrical Q is dependent upon several parameters, such as the
total series DC resistance and the flux density in the magnetic
gap. It's real tough to reduce the total series DC resistance to
less than that of the voice coil's DC resistance without resorting
to one-off techniques such as building a negative output impedance
amplifier, and it's also real tough to increase the flux density
in the gap, because most magnets run fairly close to the saturation
flux density of the pole piece.

So, without the ability to substantially reduce the DC resistance
or substantially increase the flux density, and given that impossibly
large changes in the mechanical damping are required to get you even
close, you're pretty much stuck: there is no practical way to achieve
the substantial reduction in Qts you're seeking.

Which leads us back to my first question: why do you want to do
this? Is there something otherwise extraordinary about a particular
driver that makes you want to try to fix this parameter instead of
of the much easier course of getting the right driver to begin with?
  #5  
Old April 6th 04, 12:53 PM
Dick Pierce
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default reducing Qts

lukasz > wrote in message >.. .
> Hello!!
>
> Can anybody have an idea how to reduce parameter Qts from 0.75 to 0.5
> for example?


That's quite a hefty reduction, and fairly difficult to obtain.
First, why do you need to reduce the Qts of that particular
driver?

Assuming you can't simply use a driver of the right Qts to begin
with, you don't have a lot of choices. As you might know, a
driver's Qts results principally from two other parameters, Qes,
the electrical Q and Qms, the mechanical Q. Both are measures of
the amount of losses, in the former case, from electrical losses,
in the latter from mechanical.

If the driver you has is typical of moderate- to high-quality
woofers, the electrical losses dominate, so that's where you have
to direct most of your effort. While it's generally easier to
increase mechanical losses with little effort, you need large
changes in mechanical loss to get anywhere in reducing the total
loss.

For example, take a typical woofer whose total Qts is 0.75, with
an electrical Qes of about 0.9 and a mechanical Qms of 4.5. If you
wanted to drop the total Qts down to 0.5 simply by dropping the
mechanical Qms, you'd have to drop it from 4.5 to about 1.13 or
a factor of 4, an extraordinary feat, to say the least.

On the other hand, to drop the electrical to get there is not so
easy either. In our example, you'd have to drop the electrical
Qes from 0.9 to 0.56. While it may seem that it's easier to drop
the electrical Q by ONLY a factor of 1.6 vs dropping the mechanical
Q by a factor of 1.6, that much of a drop of electrical Q is really
tough as well.

The electrical Q is dependent upon several parameters, such as the
total series DC resistance and the flux density in the magnetic
gap. It's real tough to reduce the total series DC resistance to
less than that of the voice coil's DC resistance without resorting
to one-off techniques such as building a negative output impedance
amplifier, and it's also real tough to increase the flux density
in the gap, because most magnets run fairly close to the saturation
flux density of the pole piece.

So, without the ability to substantially reduce the DC resistance
or substantially increase the flux density, and given that impossibly
large changes in the mechanical damping are required to get you even
close, you're pretty much stuck: there is no practical way to achieve
the substantial reduction in Qts you're seeking.

Which leads us back to my first question: why do you want to do
this? Is there something otherwise extraordinary about a particular
driver that makes you want to try to fix this parameter instead of
of the much easier course of getting the right driver to begin with?
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Correcting the record John Atkinson Audio Opinions 46 April 24th 04 11:21 AM
Reducing AC hum ? JeB General 4 January 5th 04 05:03 AM
Reducing noise but keep speech - Soundforge or other? S O'Neill Pro Audio 18 October 7th 03 04:13 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:57 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 AudioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.