Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] makolber@yahoo.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 614
Default 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

  #2   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
geoff geoff is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,812
Default Clipping and tweeter damage a new twist

On 26/09/2018 12:47 AM, wrote:
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



Flyback or back-emf protection diodes for the output devices, which are
routinely fitted, can serve two purposes. Not rocket-surgery.

geoff
  #3   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Phil Allison[_4_] Phil Allison[_4_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 499
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] thekmanrocks@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,742
Default 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'".
  #6   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
None None is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 106
Default 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.

  #7   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] thekmanrocks@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,742
Default 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.
  #9   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
None None is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 106
Default 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!

  #10   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] makolber@yahoo.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 614
Default 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



  #11   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
geoff geoff is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,812
Default 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
  #12   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Phil Allison[_4_] Phil Allison[_4_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 499
Default 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


Reply
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
Audio software for de-clipping overdriven sound / clipping restauration? [email protected] Pro Audio 0 September 18th 06 01:21 AM
Audio software for de-clipping overdriven sound / clipping restauration? Preben Friis Pro Audio 1 September 18th 06 12:36 AM
Audio software for de-clipping overdriven sound / clipping restauration? Cee Pro Audio 0 September 17th 06 09:08 PM
Audio software for de-clipping overdriven sound / clipping restauration? Todd Bradley Pro Audio 4 September 17th 06 07:17 PM
tweeter damage? Robert Morein Tech 9 November 19th 04 01:36 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:58 PM.

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"