wrote in message

ps.com

DF Rs QE' QT' Gh(max) Td
inf 0 0.925 0.707 0.0 dB 0.04 sec
2000 0.004 0.926 0.707 0.0 0.04
1000 0.008 0.926 0.708 0.0 0.04
500 0.016 0.927 0.708 0.0001 0.04
200 0.04 0.931 0.71 0.0004 0.04
100 0.08 0.936 0.714 0.0015 0.04
50 0.16 0.948 0.72 0.0058 0.04
20 0.4 0.982 0.74 0.033 0.041
10 0.8 1.04 0.77 0.11 0.043
5 1.6 1.15 0.83 0.35 0.047
2 4 1.49 0.99 1.24 0.056
1 8 2.06 1.22 2.54 0.069
Even at a damping factor of 20 (source resistance is 5% of
speaker impedance), the result is only a 0.33 dB hump in
the response due to "loss of damping", and a negligable
increase in the decay time of the system at resonance..

If a DF of 20 gives a 0.33 dB hump, then it should take a higher,
not lower DF to get a smaller hump, no?

Sorry, the table is correct, but there's a typo in the text: it's
0.033, not
0.33 dB.

Just roughly extrapolating, it seems like a DF of from 60 to no
more than100 would be required for a smaller, 0.1 dB hump.

No, ignoring the typon, a DF of 20 results in a bump of 0.033 dB,
and a DF of 10 gives a bump of 0.11 dB. The lower the damping
the larger the peak, but you don't start hitting significant response
variatiuons due to damping until very low damping factors.