TS parameters when changing Flux Density - diyAudio
 TS parameters when changing Flux Density
 User Name Stay logged in? Password
 Home Forums Rules Articles diyAudio Store Gallery Wiki Blogs Register Donations FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Search

 Multi-Way Conventional loudspeakers with crossovers

 Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you. Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
 23rd December 2008, 02:48 PM #1 diyAudio Member   Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: lyon TS parameters when changing Flux Density Hello I have 4 Altec 421-8H baskets with 416-8B Cones I know the TS parameters of the original 416-8B speakers with its Flux Density of 1.1 Tesla Now, new flux density with 421-8H basket and 416-8B cone is 1.44 Tesla Is it possible to calculate new TS parameters since we know original parameters and original and new flux density ? Is New Bl = (1.44/1.1) * Bl(416) ? Thanks Bruno
 23rd December 2008, 06:06 PM #2 diyAudio Member   Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: California In simplified theory, yes, that would be correct. In reality it would be correct if the flux distribution through the gap region was the same as for the 416-8B (so the ratio of flux density was the same at all points). If the top plate thicknesses are different between the speakers, then this will probably not be the same. If you build the speakers, just measure the parameters to find out what BL really is.
 23rd December 2008, 11:53 PM #3 diyAudio Member     Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: USA, MN You will roughly cut Qes in half, which will double efficiency. __________________ Our species needs, and deserves, a citizenry with minds wide awake and a basic understanding of how the world works. --Carl Sagan Armaments, universal debt, and planned obsolescence--those are the three pillars of Western prosperity. —Aldous Huxley
 24th December 2008, 08:06 AM #4 diyAudio Member   Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: lyon Hi Thanks for your answers Yes, the best way is to measure new parameters, but I was wondering: Do Cms and Rms depend only of mechanical characteristics of the cone? In that case: Fs should be the same (1/(2*PI*SQR(Cms*Mms)) Also Qms (2*PI*Fs*Mms/Rms) Also Vas (Rho*C²*Sd²*Cms ) And Qes should be (1.44/1.1)² smaller, is that what you mean Ron E ? If Cms and Rms do not change, measuring new Bl instead of estimating it (1.44/1.1) should be enough ? Rgds
diyAudio Member

Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: USA, MN
Quote:
 Originally posted by f4bok Hi Thanks for your answers Yes, the best way is to measure new parameters, but I was wondering: Do Cms and Rms depend only of mechanical characteristics of the cone? In that case: Fs should be the same (1/(2*PI*SQR(Cms*Mms)) Also Qms (2*PI*Fs*Mms/Rms) Also Vas (Rho*C²*Sd²*Cms ) And Qes should be (1.44/1.1)² smaller, is that what you mean Ron E ? If Cms and Rms do not change, measuring new Bl instead of estimating it (1.44/1.1) should be enough ? Rgds
Yes.

Rms should not change much unless former is conductive. Cms is just springiness, nothing to do with motor.

Measuring Qes, Qms is easier than Rms or Bl.
__________________
Our species needs, and deserves, a citizenry with minds wide awake and a basic understanding of how the world works. --Carl Sagan
Armaments, universal debt, and planned obsolescence--those are the three pillars of Western prosperity. —Aldous Huxley

 Posting Rules You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On HTML code is OffTrackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are Off Forum Rules

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post f4bok Pass Labs 2 23rd December 2008 02:46 PM calvert73 Subwoofers 1 17th December 2008 10:57 PM fmak Parts 3 4th August 2006 06:33 PM machinehead Power Supplies 8 17th January 2006 07:45 PM airman Multi-Way 17 10th January 2006 08:47 PM

 New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 12:13 AM.