Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Clipping and tweeter damage a new twist
Here is a new twist in the debate about clipping damaging tweeters.
Its in this excellent book. http://milas.spb.ru/~kmg/files/liter...Amplifiers.pdf Designing Audio Power Amplifiers by Bob Cordell On page 332 re protection circuits. If V-I limiters only acted to clip the signal amplitude, as with ordinary clipping of an amplifier, they would not be so bad. Unfortunately, in most cases the V-I limiter causes the output stage to change from a voltage source to a current source when the V-I limiter engages. When this happens, there is almost surely a lot of stored energy in the loudspeaker and crossover network. This stored energy wants to cause current to flow somewhere and be dissipated. With the output stage in a current source mode of operation, this may not be possible. As a result, a large inductive spike or kick may result, often transitioning the output voltage to that of the opposite rail (i.e., in a direction opposite to that in which the output stage was changing the signal). This spike will be very audible, and its large amplitude may cause damage to the loudspeakers tweeter. The action of a V-I limiter can turn an amplifier into a tweeter eater. The stored energy in the loudspeaker drivers and crossover will find its way to a place where it can be dissipated. The stored energy in the woofer and crossover coil(s) may be transferred to the tweeter. So it may be the transients created in some protection circuits that actually damage the tweeter, not simply clipping. This is the first thing that I have read about this subject that actually makes some sense. Mark |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Clipping and tweeter damage a new twist
wrote:
Here is a new twist in the debate about clipping damaging tweeters. ** It's not new and there is no such debate going on. Its in this excellent book. http://milas.spb.ru/~kmg/files/liter...Amplifiers.pdf Designing Audio Power Amplifiers by Bob Cordell On page 332 re protection circuits. If V-I limiters only acted to clip the signal amplitude, as with ordinary clipping of an amplifier, they would not be so bad. Unfortunately, in most cases the V-I limiter causes the output stage to change from a voltage source to a current source when the V-I limiter engages. When this happens, there is almost surely a lot of stored energy in the loudspeaker and crossover network. This stored energy wants to cause current to flow somewhere and be dissipated. With the output stage in a current source mode of operation, this may not be possible. As a result, a large inductive spike or kick may result, often transitioning the output voltage to that of the opposite rail (i.e., in a direction opposite to that in which the output stage was changing the signal). This spike will be very audible, and its large amplitude may cause damage to the loudspeakers tweeter. The action of a V-I limiter can turn an amplifier into a tweeter eater. The stored energy in the loudspeaker drivers and crossover will find its way to a place where it can be dissipated. The stored energy in the woofer and crossover coil(s) may be transferred to the tweeter. ** Bob's book is Copyright 2011 In 2000, this article was published on the ESP site. http://sound.whsites.net/vi.htm The text accompanying figure 4 covers the same issue. So it may be the transients created in some protection circuits that actually damage the tweeter, not simply clipping. ** No fooling ? That heavy amp clipping harms (unprotected) tweeters is beyond dispute, the transients do it theory is full of holes. This is the first thing that I have read about this subject that actually makes some sense. ** Strange how things make sense to you and not others. ..... Phil |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Clipping and tweeter damage a new twist
** Bob's book is Copyright 2011 In 2000, this article was published on the ESP site. http://sound.whsites.net/vi.htm The text accompanying figure 4 covers the same issue. good article. indicates that the protection spikes can be worse than clipping. and the catch diodes are to protect the amplifier, not the tweeter. thanks mark |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Clipping and tweeter damage a new twist
On 27/09/2018 2:33 AM, wrote:
** Bob's book is Copyright 2011 In 2000, this article was published on the ESP site. http://sound.whsites.net/vi.htm The text accompanying figure 4 covers the same issue. good article. indicates that the protection spikes can be worse than clipping. and the catch diodes are to protect the amplifier, not the tweeter. But do it all the same. geoff |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Clipping and tweeter damage a new twist
wrote:
** Bob's book is Copyright 2011 In 2000, this article was published on the ESP site. http://sound.whsites.net/vi.htm The text accompanying figure 4 covers the same issue. good article. ** Thanks. indicates that the protection spikes can be worse than clipping. ** If they occur regularly, it makes the amp unusable with particular speakers. The sound those spikes make is intolerable. and the catch diodes are to protect the amplifier, not the tweeter. ** Tweeters are still protected by passive x-overs, which should remove most of the energy. Plus unlike clipping, users are not likely to let spiking go on for long before turning down the volume enough to stop it. I still test power amps for propensity to deliver spikes, as descried in the article. Amps that failed the test spectacularly were particular models made by Yamaha, Bose and Phase Linear, among others. ..... Phil |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Clipping and tweeter damage a new twist
:
That's why I don't listen to a lot of clipped material on my systems. I even wrote several labels and told them their "brick-wall limited **** was screwing up my speakers'". |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Clipping and tweeter damage a new twist
|
#9
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Clipping and tweeter damage a new twist
geoff wrote: "
Yeah but at that point you didn't have a clue what the difference was between a clipped waveform and a flat-topped envelope. And apparently still don't. geoff " The difference between a waveform and envelope depends on the level of magnification/how much zoomed in. R.A.P. is the only place where folks nit-pick about that distinction. I can use either term waveform or envelope on any forum and most participants get what I mean. And people like you still condone clipping and peak limiting anyway, so I'm just talking to the walls around here. |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Clipping and tweeter damage a new twist
|
#11
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Clipping and tweeter damage a new twist
On 26/09/2018 8:58 pm, geoff wrote:
On 26/09/2018 10:17 PM, wrote: The difference between a waveform and envelope depends on the level of magnification/how much zoomed in. No it doesn't. Those factors only relate to what you are looking at ini what detail. Flat envelope does NOT equate to clipping AT ALL. Doesn't HAVE to of course, but OFTEN does in the pop world these days. You get maximum noise using huge amounts of compression *AND* large amounts of clipping. R.A.P. is the only place where folks nit-pick about that distinction. I can use either term waveform or envelope on any forum and most participants get what I mean. In which case they are as ignorant as you. Sadly most often the case. And people like you still condone clipping and peak limiting anyway, so I'm just talking to the walls around here. FWIW I loathe over-compression, and clipping is a totally no-no. And peak-limiting is something totally different again. Actually peak limiting is just another type of compression. Even clipping is just compression with a small attack value and close to infinite compression value. |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Clipping and tweeter damage a new twist
Thekmah the village idiot wrote in message
... geoff wrote: " Yeah but at that point you didn't have a clue what the difference was between a clipped waveform and a flat-topped envelope. And apparently s till don't. geoff " The difference between a waveform and envelope depends on the level of magnification/how much zoomed in. R.A.P. is the only place where folks nit-pick about that distinction. I can use either term waveform or envelope on any forum and most participants get what I mean. So, in summary, you never understood, you never intended to understand, you never tried to understand, and you still don't understand. You never will understand, and you seem devoted to coming back here regularly to prove, yet again, that you're a clueless short-bus retard, and that things like compression, limiting, and clipping are way over your head and you are just too stupid to get it. And people like you still condone clipping and peak limiting anyway, so I'm just talking to the walls around here. You're just whining that everyone else is smarter than you. Maybe you should stick to the elementary-school short bus. You might be smarter than a couple of them. HTH. FOADYFSBDF. FCKWAF! |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Clipping and tweeter damage a new twist
K-tard gibbered in message
... That's why I don't listen to a lot of clipped material on my systems. I even wrote several labels and told them their "brick-wall limited **** was screwing up my speakers'". Thanks for reminding everyone that you're still a retarded dumb ****, and you still have no idea what compression is and how it works. **** for brains. LKDF. FCKWAFA. SBDF. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Audio software for de-clipping overdriven sound / clipping restauration? | Pro Audio | |||
Audio software for de-clipping overdriven sound / clipping restauration? | Pro Audio | |||
Audio software for de-clipping overdriven sound / clipping restauration? | Pro Audio | |||
Audio software for de-clipping overdriven sound / clipping restauration? | Pro Audio | |||
tweeter damage? | Tech |