Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Motional feedback in speakers
In another forum I inhabit, someone posted details about a National
Panasonic amplifier and speakers that employs a Motional FeedBack system: https://www.hifiengine.com/manual_li...l/sa-52h.shtml I was more than a little surprised, as I assumed that Philips invented the system for their famous range of speakers, released in the 1970s. Anyway, I did a little digging and found that the National system was based on one invented by Luxman in the 1960s: http://www.proaudiodesignforum.com/f...php?f=12&t=707 Impressive technology for a domestic product for the time. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Motional feedback in speakers
No surprise at all, back in the day when tube-based amplifier damping factors were somewhere between 10 and 15 on a good day with a tailwind, and acoustic suspension was uncommon. The 'cure' for tubby bass would be some choice between a stiffer spider, stiffer surround, smaller magnet, shorter excursion, any or all.
Seems overly complex - and I can see where it did not last long, or penetrate past a very few makers. By the way, Philips speakers were "active" speakers, needing only a pre-amp input. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Motional feedback in speakers
On 5/11/2019 11:16 pm, Peter Wieck wrote:
No surprise at all **Well, it was a surprise to me. In 45 years of servicing equipment, I've never seen that technology is a valve based product. Perhaps it was more common in the US. , back in the day when tube-based amplifier damping factors were somewhere between 10 and 15 on a good day with a tailwind, and acoustic suspension was uncommon. **The output impedance of modern valve amps is no better. In fact, the real figures are frequently much poorer than the (inferred) figure of 0.8 ~ 0.5 Ohms you suggest (so-called 'Damping Factor' is a misleading and rather poor specification to quote in technical matters). Here are some figures from Stereophile: https://www.stereophile.com/content/...r-measurements https://www.stereophile.com/content/...r-measurements https://www.stereophile.com/content/...r-measurements Fundamentally, the output transformer is a major limitation in most valve amplifiers. It leads to serious problems with frequency/phase response figures for most loudspeakers. The 'cure' for tubby bass would be some choice between a stiffer spider, stiffer surround, smaller magnet, shorter excursion, any or all. **Or, of course, a decent amplifier, with a sensible output impedance figure (which excludes most valve amps). Seems overly complex - and I can see where it did not last long, or penetrate past a very few makers. By the way, Philips speakers were "active" speakers, needing only a pre-amp input. **Well, yes, but the Philips MFB speakers also employed a closed loop system, which measured the output signal from the speakers, thus negating much of the influence of issues with the amplifier used (and the limitations of the enclosure). The Luxman/Panasonic system appears to employ a similar, closed loop approach. And, as I stated before, I was surprised to see such a system in a domestic system way back then, due to the cost/complexity of such a system. I'd like to see one in the flesh. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Motional feedback in speakers
On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 11:12:22 AM UTC-5, Peter Wieck wrote:
No surprise at all, back in the day when tube-based amplifier damping factors were somewhere between 10 and 15 on a good day with a tailwind, and acoustic suspension was uncommon. The 'cure' for tubby bass would be some choice between a stiffer spider, stiffer surround, smaller magnet, shorter excursion, any or all. Uhm, no, not anywhere near a "cure", in fact, demonstrably feeds the disease. Let's look at it piece by piece. Assume everything else remains the same, and by "tubby bass", you mean excessive Q at resonance: 1. Stiffer spider, stiffer surround, either or both will raise the resonant frequency of the driver, thus a higher Q at resonance. Result: more "tubby bass". 2. Smaller magnet: presumably what youare in effect saying is reduce the BL product of the motor system. Well, since the Q at resonance is an inverse function of the BL product, that raises the Q of the system. Result: more "tubby bass." 3. Shorter excursion: that, by itself will have little effect on "tubby bass" per what it will do is cause more distortion at lower levels. Result: more distorted "tubby bass." Now, if the issue is speakers with "tubby bass" and low damping factor amplifiers, motional feedback IS NOT THE CURE AT ALL. The entire point of motional feedback was to attempt to linearize the speaker system, i.e. reduce distortion. It does NOTHING to reduce Q, reduce "tubby bass." One of the big problems with drivers is that the suspension stiffness and the magnet's BL product is, for the most part, highly non-linear: the stiffness increases with excursion, the BL product decreases with excursion. And the greater the excursion, the greater the deviation of both. And the greatest excursion occurs at low frequencies (all other things being equal) and, ultimately, at resonance. Now, IF the difference between sensor (the sense coil, in at least on case) says where the woofer is vs where the amplifier thinks the woofer should be, the feedback SHOULD provide a complementary non-linear change in its output voltage to compensate. There are several different ways of doing this: a sense coil will provide an output that's a function of velocity, while things like the piezo sensor in things like the Velodyne output a signal that's proportional to acceleration. In the former case, you integrate once to get position, in the later, you integrate twice to get position. But here's the rub: there IS NOT a simple functional relationship between either the position, velocity or acceleration of the cone and its acoustic output. In other words: the sensor providing the feedback signal CANNOT be used to correct the frequency response of the system, i.e., it's not fixing "tubby bass", it's trying to fix "distorted bass". Let me give one example that shows why this is true: look at ANY bass reflex system: let's assume, for the moment, that it is "optimally" tuned, i.e., that its frequency response is that of a "perfect" lossless B4 alignment: it's dead flat down to cutoff, and it rolls off at 24 dB/octave below that. Now, look at what the cone is doing as it goes down in frequency through the region of cutoff: Acceleration: Constant with frequency as you go lower until you approach the enclosure tuning frequency, at which point is approaches 0, ad blow which it increases back up to the same constant as above tuning. Velocity: Increases as inverse of frequency until you approach the enclosure tuning frequency, then goes to 0, goes back up for a bit then starts decreasing with decreasing frequency. Position: Increases as the inverse square of frequency until you approach the enclosure tuning, at which point it approaches 0, then below it starts increasing with decreasing frequency. And, oh by the way, where all the mechanical stuff goes to 0 at the enclosure tuning frequency, the output of the port is increasing and the bulk of the speaker's acoustic output comes NOT from the driver, but from the port. In other words, as far as frequency response is concerned, neither the acceleration, nor the velocity, nor the position of the cone is a useful predictor of the acoustic output in such a system. Seems overly complex - and I can see where it did not last long, or penetrate past a very few makers. By the way, Philips speakers were "active" speakers, needing only a pre-amp input. Well, I "was there" when the the phillips was being marketed, and at the same time there was an actually reasonably well-implemented B6 system from EV, designed by, I believe D. B. Keele. Neither speaker was "outstanding", but both were quite reasonable systems, performance-wise. Both died in the market for a variety of reasons, but, especially with the Philips, customers resisted it because they wanted to use it with THEIR amplifier. Often times, they already had a system and wanted to upgrade speakers, and looked at their existing amplifier as now being a "waste". And, with the EV, that little EQ box, no matter how technically sound the approach was, was just an obstacle for most people. To many, it reminded them of the Bose 901, and for many, that was just too much. It had NOTHING to do with performance, it was all about perception, rational or otherwise. Regardless, systems like this withered on the vine having little to do with their technical merit. |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Motional feedback in speakers
Take the (permanent magnet) speaker as a linear motor.
Now, for illustrative purposes, obtain a small DC brush-type motor. Spin it with your fingers. Now, short the leads to the motor. Now, try spinning it again with your fingers. Not so easy. That is the function of "damping factor" - As a way to prevent a PM speaker from wobbling like a spring when it is released. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Motional feedback in speakers
On 8/11/2019 6:31 am, Peter Wieck wrote:
Take the (permanent magnet) speaker as a linear motor. Now, for illustrative purposes, obtain a small DC brush-type motor. Spin it with your fingers. Now, short the leads to the motor. Now, try spinning it again with your fingers. Not so easy. That is the function of "damping factor" - As a way to prevent a PM speaker from wobbling like a spring when it is released. **No. It doesn't work like that. In a PROPERLY designed enclosure, so-called "damping" is not dependent on amplifier output impedance. Damping is supplied by the enclosure itself. However, the poor output impedance exhibited by the vast majority of valve amplifiers and some SS amplifiers can lead to significant frequency response aberrations in line with the impedance variations exhibited by most speaker systems. Again, I refer you to a couple of curves published by Stereophile: https://www.stereophile.com/content/...r-measurements Note the 3.5dB peaks at 65Hz and 1.5kHz. Now here is the curve of a 'perfect' amplifier driving the same, simulated, speaker load: https://www.stereophile.com/content/...r-measurements (fig.1) Note the differences between resistive loads and reactive loads. And, of course, here is a rather more modestly priced 'perfect' amplifier: https://www.stereophile.com/content/...r-measurements And, once mo "Damping factor" is a misnomer. It is a misleading and incorrect term to use. Output impedance (preferably quoted from 20Hz ~ 20kHz) is vastly more preferable. A PROPERLY designed speaker system already has adequate damping. Amplifier damping is not relevant, BUT output impedance is. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Motional feedback in speakers
On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 3:51:05 PM UTC-5, Trevor Wilson wrote:
**No. It doesn't work like that. In a PROPERLY designed enclosure, so-called "damping" is not dependent on amplifier output impedance. Damping is supplied by the enclosure itself. Nope, the enclosure supplies NO damping at all. Maybe the internal fibrous fill provides a little, but the enclosure, that is, the volume of air that goes through compression and rarefaction as the cone moves, provides absolutely no damping at all. Unless someone has hijacked the meaning of the term, "damping" quite unambiguously and precisely to the action by which energy is removed from a system and does not return. In the case of loudspeakers, there are three sources of such action (the permanent removal of energy from a resonant system): 1. Electrical: motional or electrical kinetic energy is transformed into heat by the electrically resistive elements in the circuit. The single most significant such element is the DC resistance of the voice coil: most of the energy will be converted by that DC resistance into heat and removed from the system. Changing the total loop resistance from, say, 6 ohms, connected to an amplifier with infinite "damping factor" to, say, 6.3 ohms, connected to an amplifier with a "damping factor" of 20, guess what, the change in electrical damping is a STAGGERING ... 5%. 2. Mechanical, principally the frictional losses in the surround and spider. These frictional losses are less significant than the electrical. Typically, the mechanical damping is anywhere from 6 to 10 times less than the electrical damping. 3. Acoustical: this is the energy carried away by the sound the speaker is making and, for the vast majority of direct-radiator speaker, this damping comprises the tiniest part of the total dissapitive losses. |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Motional feedback in speakers
On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 2:41:04 PM UTC-5, Peter Wieck wrote:
Take the (permanent magnet) speaker as a linear motor. Now, for illustrative purposes, obtain a small DC brush-type motor. Spin it with your fingers. Now, short the leads to the motor. Now, try spinning it again with your fingers. Not so easy. That is the function of "damping factor" - As a way to prevent a PM speaker from wobbling like a spring when it is released. Cute analogy, but FAR from the physical reality of speakers. Start by inserting a 6-ohm resistor in series with the lead to the motor. Make sure it's PERMANENTLY connected and can't be bypassed. Pretend that's the DC resistance of the voice coil. Try to spin it with your finger. Easy, right? NOW short it (making sure that 6-ohm resistor is still in series). Try to spin it with your finger. Really, how much harder to you think it might be (hint: not much). Take your same motor, but pack the bearings with thick grease. Now, try spinning it with your fingers. Not so easy. So, if you want your little experiment to have ANY connection with the reality of a speaker, that's what you have to do. |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Motional feedback in speakers
Ummmmmm.....
A speaker is a linear motor with a magnet, and a commutator (voice coil). Just as in a PM Motor, when current is applied, the motor spins. DC motors spin according to the polarity of the power applied. Speakers move in or out depending on the polarity of the current applied. And, PM motors do, also, have a fixed resistance across the commutator just like a voice coil. Now, when current stops being applied, the motor generates current - acts as a generator as it spins down. If it is unloaded, that current goes nowhere and does not add additional resistance to the motor spinning than normal bearing friction. However, if the motor is loaded, there will be additional friction. Similarly the (conventional) speaker. Try it some time with a sensitive VOM.. The bigger the driver, the more easily this is observed. Just a few taps on the speaker cone will show you. All and at the same time, DF is only one (1) single factor in how amplifiers interact with speakers. And, today in 2019, the issues that drove speaker design in the era after field-coil speakers were dominant up until the development of acoustic suspension are not particularly relevant as much evolution is taken for granted (and usually is granted). However, as one who spends as much time with electronics from the 1930s as from the the 1970s and up, I see all sorts of variations on how to control large speaker overshoot, sagging, and similar problems. A 15" Zenith speaker driven by a single-ended 6F6 is an entirely different animal than a 12" Long-throw woofer from an AR3a. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Motional feedback in speakers
On 8/11/2019 6:32 am, Mat Nieuwenhoven wrote:
Interesting story. I had two of the smallest Philips MFBs a few years back, was not impressed with the sound. **I've never lived with a pair, but was always impressed with the quite decent sound quality from the Philips MFB systems. Regarding feedback, I remember there was an hobby project long ago to have a very small R between speaker and GND (GND also being the amp's ground), and using the speaker's back EMF as feedback to correct excursions. There are some later publications from W.Kippel about it. **The first system I saw with that arrangement was the Infinity RS1. It introduced as many problems as it solved. Amplifiers with 'floating' output stages encountered some problems. Bridged amplifiers too. That said, the bass extension available from a rather modestly sized, sealed enclosure was impressive. The idea is that the speaker's voice coil itself is the sensor. Will this feedback method work? **I can attest that it certainly works. And only for closed boxes, or for bassreflex also? **I would have thought that such a system works best with the simple roll-off available with a sealed enclosure. I guess with sufficient modelling and appropriate filtering, it should be OK with more complex enclosure types. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Motional feedback in speakers
On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 4:32:20 PM UTC-5, Trevor Wilson wrote:
Regarding feedback, I remember there was an hobby project long ago to have a very small R between speaker and GND (GND also being the amp's ground), and using the speaker's back EMF as feedback to correct excursions. There are some later publications from W.Kippel about it. **The first system I saw with that arrangement was the Infinity RS1. It introduced as many problems as it solved. Amplifiers with 'floating' output stages encountered some problems. Bridged amplifiers too. That said, the bass extension available from a rather modestly sized, sealed enclosure was impressive. May well be the case, but it wasn't because of feedback. If there was anything done electronically, it was EQ which, itself, is a completely legitimate way of getting bandwidth, if done properly*. * Which, of course, is subject to Dick Pierce's First Law of Acoustics: Anny idiot can design a loudspeaker and, unfortunately, many do. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
mu feedback | Vacuum Tubes | |||
Yahoo group for LWE motional feedback loudspeakers made by Louis W. Erath & Acoustron | High End Audio | |||
Feedback | Vacuum Tubes | |||
16 ohm Feedback Tap | Vacuum Tubes | |||
Need Advise on Feedback / Feedback Eliminators | Pro Audio |