my ribbons full range in CB

@lupi,
What type of amplifier are you using when testing?
The rolled off high end suggests you are using direct drive without any series resistance. Have you measured the distortion contribution of the amplifier when driving this very low impedance load at each of the output levels?

Also, can you check the boxes below the plot to show the distortion curves for 2nd and 3rd harmonic to see what distortion type is dominant?

Another thought concerns using the swept sine stimulus for distortion measurement. You need to have the signal level near the top of the available range so that that there is enough "bits" available to calculate the distortion properly. You might consider trying to verify the distortion trend with volume level using the spectrum analyzer for a few discrete frequencies.


The amplifier test was the first thing I did. On a resistive load of 0.05 ohm (the ribbon has 0.075 ohms) and at the highest level I used on the ribbon, the THD is always below 50 dB. Lower levels even less. You're right: I do not use resistance in series

Those graphics by mistake I did not save them. I send you one similar graph at the 6.7W level. Distortion is almost the second harmonic.
ribb3-18_a.jpg
At the oscilloscope it seems (it's hard to see THD <4%) that the positive halfwave, and always that at all frequencies with high THD, is slightly crushed on the top. Not flat at all, but less sharp then it should. At 0.43W prevails second or third harmonic according to the frequency.

Yes, levels are close to the top, especially for strong signal measurements. I have a single frequency cancellation type distortion meter, and at the beginning I did comparisons with REW. With the bar levels just on the orange they get the best dynamic. In this particular case I did not consider it necessary to make a verification, as the THD is relatively high
lupi
 

Attachments

  • ribb3-18_a.jpg
    ribb3-18_a.jpg
    117.4 KB · Views: 470
Thanks for the new measurement, and confirmation that you are performing distortion measurements with REW using optimum dynamic range.

I noticed that the SPL for this new measurement is about 2.5dB higher than the 6.7W measurement in post#36. The distortion is also much higher...about +10dB in the midrange. Is it possible that your microphone was closer to the ribbon for this new measurement than for the older one? If so, I wonder if it is your microphone that is causing the unexpected increase in distortion with signal level. It is not uncommon for electret capsules to generate significant 2nd harmonic content with increased signal level depending on the internal JFET buffer configuration. I noticed this when performing near field woofer distortion tests with some microphones. You mentioned replacing the capsule in you microphone, so perhaps it is related.

Quote from Linkwitz website: System Test
"...When the cartridge is connected as described by Panasonic it produces fairly high distortion at moderate SPL's and is marginally suitable for serious recording and measurement purposes. The microphone itself is extremely linear, but the built in FET amplifier stage is not configured optimally..."

You might experiment measuring your ribbon (or another driver) at a fixed higher power level and moving the microphone closer and further away to see how the distortion trends with SPL at the microphone. If the microphone is not introducing level dependent distortion, the distortion levels should stay the same for all the distances.
 
Hi bolserst
It is certainly possible that I have put the microphone at different distances. Always between 3 and 5 cm, but not always the same. I usually write the distance, but as I wrote those curves I did not save them.
A suspicion on the microphone came to me, and I had tried to move it away, but the THD at 6.7W did not diminish. From the last post I made 2 things at one time: I ordered a calibrated microphone, UMIK1, and I built another sandwich ribbon: Alu-depron-Alu, which I've already mounted on the engine. The UMIK1 has already arrived but I did just a few tests on the new ribbon, because of the work. From these tests I have the feeling that the blame of the high THD is to be attributed in part to the microphone and partly to the previous tape. As soon as I finish the job and clean the tables I will do other tests, including reassembling the old tape and making comparisons.
lupi
I read linkwitz, which refers to the WM61A capsule. I also ordered some of those capsules, but the delivery is scheduled in a few weeks
 
To come up with the increase in distortion with the signal level I first bought a new microphone, UMIK1, and performed calibration. Specifics say 1% THD at 133 dB SPL and 0dB gain setting. I've been looking for a "gain setting," but once I load the calibration file, the gain of the sound card has no effect, so I assume I'm in the specifications and I can overlook the microphone distortion.
I made measurements on 3 ribbons, which I called risp. Ribb3, ribb4 and ribb 5.

3 ribbons.JPG

All 3 have the same suspensions, both lateral and at the ends, and are divided into 4 strips electrically connected in series
--- Ribb3 is the one of the last measure I have posted, and it is: Alu thick 80 um + depron thick 3 mm transversally segmented, 0.075 ohm, left in the photo.
--- Ribb4: 30 μm Alu, 1.5 mm depron, 30 μm Alu. The upper Alu strips are welded to the corresponding Alu strips bottom, 0.098 ohms total. At the center of the photo.
--- Ribb5: Alu thick 80 um + depron thick 3 mm smooth, 0.072 ohm, right in the picture.
I did some photos while building ribb4:
making Alu strips x2.JPG
shaping lat susp.JPG
and ribb5:
attaching lateral paper.JPG
making silicone sheet.JPG
glueing silicone sheet.JPG

The mic-ribbon distance is for all curves 7 cm, the signal level is 0.18Veff, so the power on the ribbons is not the same but varies depending on the resistance. Electronic compensation is always present.
ribb3_umik-30.jpg
ribb4_umik-30.jpg
ribb5_umik-30.jpg

 

Attachments

  • ribb5_umik-30.jpg
    ribb5_umik-30.jpg
    108.7 KB · Views: 122
  • ribb4_umik-30.jpg
    ribb4_umik-30.jpg
    108.9 KB · Views: 128
  • ribb3_umik-30.jpg
    ribb3_umik-30.jpg
    109.3 KB · Views: 184
  • glueing silicone sheet.JPG
    glueing silicone sheet.JPG
    209.6 KB · Views: 187
  • making silicone sheet.JPG
    making silicone sheet.JPG
    285.4 KB · Views: 351
  • attaching lateral paper.JPG
    attaching lateral paper.JPG
    251.9 KB · Views: 350
  • shaping lat susp.JPG
    shaping lat susp.JPG
    302.6 KB · Views: 353
  • making Alu strips x2.JPG
    making Alu strips x2.JPG
    296.8 KB · Views: 371
  • 3 ribbons.JPG
    3 ribbons.JPG
    276 KB · Views: 230
for the 3 graphics below the signal was 0.72Veff
ribb3_umik-18.jpg
ribb4_umik-18.jpg
ribb5_umik-18.jpg
The following graphs compare the SPL and THD of the 3 ribbons in the case of signal = 0.72Veff. Green = ribb3, red = ribb4, blue = ribb5
SPL-18 compare.jpg
THD -18 compare.jpg
Ribb4 seems to me the best, especially under 70 Hz, so for the final version I will work for the type of sandwitch construction, though it is substantially more laborious.
 

Attachments

  • THD -18 compare.jpg
    THD -18 compare.jpg
    106.5 KB · Views: 98
  • SPL-18 compare.jpg
    SPL-18 compare.jpg
    102.4 KB · Views: 95
  • ribb5_umik-18.jpg
    ribb5_umik-18.jpg
    109.2 KB · Views: 90
  • ribb4_umik-18.jpg
    ribb4_umik-18.jpg
    109.2 KB · Views: 81
  • ribb3_umik-18.jpg
    ribb3_umik-18.jpg
    109.8 KB · Views: 190
To conclude the speech of the increase in distortion by increasing the signal level:
I spent a lot of time comparing the graph made with 2 different microphones, but I did not find significant differences in the THD, so I have to assume it's not a microphone artifact but it's a feature of the ribbons. The reason for this behavior has not been highlighted by the numerous tests I have done on various ribbons, and at this point I am temporarily off topic and continue with the beginning of the construction of the final, 112 cm long and 30 mm wide ribbons. It may be that drastically changing both motor and ribbon the above reason comes out.
I decided to reduce the width from 40 to 30 mm for less directionality, and I compensated for the surface reduction with the increase in length, which I initially placed at 92 cm.
First, I have refined the magnetic field simulations by designing polar expansions as close as possible to reality, that is, with the curves resulting from sheet bending, and adjusting angles, taper and wings length for better uniformity of field . However, I had to choose a compromise, since to improve uniformity over a certain point we have to accept a reduction in the intensity of the field. The picture below is what I decided to accomplish

ribd46real1.pdf

The following 3 charts are for Bx along the 8mm below, center, and 8mm above lines. The maximum Bx excursion across the whole of area is about 8.5%, or, if you prefer, +/- 4.25%.
Bx30mm-8mm.jpg
Bx30mm_centro.jpg
Bx30mm+8mm.jpg
The uniformity of Bx is greatly influenced by even small changes in the geometry of the wings of the polar pieces, and knowing the precision of the mechanics I realized I should still be within 10% of the total. Going to the realization I ordered to a workshop the U with the angular wings. Initially I made asymmetric angles of 58 ° and 65 °, based on previous simulations.

U from off.JPG

Later on, based on the latest simulations, I returned to the workshop and corrected the angles at 75°, symmetrical. I have tapered the U wings not exactly as by design but virtually, leaving the constant thickness and cutting V-shaped slits so as to minimize also the shadow effect. It's not the same thing but the differences should be small (I hope). I did not control it with a 3d simulation because it would take too, too long
zoomU.JPG
V-cuttings I made them by means of a mold I built for this purpose, mounted on a small manual pressdie
stampo.JPG

In the end I have the 4 finished polar expansions, painting aside

U finite.JPG
 

Attachments

  • Bx30mm+8mm.jpg
    Bx30mm+8mm.jpg
    57.5 KB · Views: 98
  • Bx30mm_centro.jpg
    Bx30mm_centro.jpg
    53.3 KB · Views: 96
  • Bx30mm-8mm.jpg
    Bx30mm-8mm.jpg
    59.4 KB · Views: 103
  • ribd46real1.pdf
    146.5 KB · Views: 88
  • U from off.JPG
    U from off.JPG
    284 KB · Views: 134
  • zoomU.JPG
    zoomU.JPG
    376.1 KB · Views: 154
  • stampo.JPG
    stampo.JPG
    353.5 KB · Views: 188
  • U finite.JPG
    U finite.JPG
    314.5 KB · Views: 179
Interesting stuff lupi

Things that I would try...

Try a ribbon with no suspension at the sides. I suspect some if not much of your distortion issues are related to the suspension. Yes if your going to take it low in frequency you will have to get the gap between ribbon and magnet down to around 2mm or less.

The thicknesses of the materials you are using are quite thicker than a typical ribbon. Most good plastic backed ribbons have backing around 10 microns, adhesive around 10 microns, foil around 15 microns. These are approximate values that depending on construction could be 1/2 of this BUT not much more than this or the sound not as good.



People talk on and on about getting a uniform field across gap. I have found that while its a good goal it does not make a huge difference in end result with plastic backed ribbons. Better to get the ribbon itself right. In a practical wide magnet gap arraignment this usually means build a ribbon that is light, well damped, and quite flexible across its width ( not a stiff large pleat design). If you look at Apogee mid/treb ribbons they are All very small pleat designs that are made to flex easily across their width. They are quite well damped by virtue of the combination of Kapton backing and visco elastic adhesive and foil lamination. This flexibility and good damp works well with a non perfect uniform feild strength. Ribbon can flex without causing too much issue in sound. The resonances are mostly benign this way. The wide ribbon, larger pleat designs that are usually "FO" ( foil only) will usually be used below about 3 khz as the resonances of that stiff undamped ribbon can be ugly above that. You might think that a super uniform field strength would help a lot with this BUT it only helps a little.
I have only made one stiff across the width ribbon design that is well damped enough to get the best of both worlds BUT it is quite a bit more difficult to build.

I too have experimented with the suspension thing in the past. At one point to reduce the suspension issues I was thermo forming polyester film of about 5 microns to make the half roll suspension to reduce mass. As well I cut a number of slits in the half roll all along its length to suppress the resonances along its length(that suspension is very stiff along its length without the slits to free up the ribbons action). This helped BUT regardless of what the distortion and freq response says , my ears told me that the suspension is just dead weight on a very low mass free swinging transducer. In other words the simple ribbon done well and made large enough to go as low as I wanted just always sounded better than one with a suspension.
 
Last edited:
Interesting stuff lupi

Things that I would try...

Try a ribbon with no suspension at the sides. I suspect some if not much of your distortion issues are related to the suspension. Yes if your going to take it low in frequency you will have to get the gap between ribbon and magnet down to around 2mm or less.

Hi Lowmass
I also tried ribbons without lateral suspension, more for testing than otherwise, but the trend of the THD with signal level did not change appreciably. Using the side suspension was one of my project's assumptions, since, in my opinion, it is the only way to reach woofer's frequencies. In fact, I have not seen around ribbons with side gap falling below 100 hz, or that to put the ribbon in a closed box, everything must be airtight, otherwise you have a vented box.
All this without touching the argument that according to many peoples lateral gaps are sources of distortion due to the Venturi effect, and that to THD fall below some% the gap width should be no more than a few tenths of millimeter, what is hardly obtainable on 1m in length

The thicknesses of the materials you are using are quite thicker than a typical ribbon. Most good plastic backed ribbons have backing around 10 microns, adhesive around 10 microns, foil around 15 microns. These are approximate values that depending on construction could be 1/2 of this BUT not much more than this or the sound not as good.

I use ribbons with Alu very thick to increase the mass without greatly reducing the efficiency. The mass is necessary to extend the low-frequency response in closed box. I am aware that the Alu 80 μm is hard to work and it is not elastic, but with small thicknesses and dead weight added the yield would be too low


I too have experimented with the suspension thing in the past. At one point to reduce the suspension issues I was thermo forming polyester film of about 5 microns to make the half roll suspension to reduce mass. As well I cut a number of slits in the half roll all along its length to suppress the resonances along its length(that suspension is very stiff along its length without the slits to free up the ribbons action). This helped BUT regardless of what the distortion and freq response says , my ears told me that the suspension is just dead weight on a very low mass free swinging transducer. In other words the simple ribbon done well and made large enough to go as low as I wanted just always sounded better than one with a suspension.

The polyester film you used is too rigid, even though it is thin 5 μm, and longitudinal cuts break the air tight and therefore make the side suspension useless, apart the other advantage of the side suspension that is it greatly reduces rattle problems, to which are subject long ribbons
 
check your umik to, as in the previous post linked by bolsert to my thread it was only 10db off soo.....in the higher domains, compared to my new measurement mic

Hi WrineX
I tried moving away the microphones, both the Umik and the Technics, to have a SPL 10 dB less, but oddly the THD seems a little higher. I've been trying to find out if there's something around responsible for the phenomenon, but I have not found anything. As I said in the post above I will come back to the topic when I get the new ribbons
 
Lupi

On the gap thing. I have prototype large ribbons with no side suspensions that use about a 1 mm gap. They have absolutly no problem getting well below 100 hz. In the original prototypes I made the magnets adjustable to play with the effect of the gap. The magnets were adjustable on the fly as the music was playing. As the gap was closed up you would all of a suden hear the difference as sudenly the bass would come. The idea that you need a few tenths of mm I have not seen that to be tru.

As far as the gap vs distortion thing. I find you can actually reduce the distortion by using a larger gap. Sensativity suffers a bit but a very tight gap actually will raise distortion. This is actually somthig I am working on at the moment. Finding a bit larger gap in one of my designs that lowers the distortion a bit without too much sensativity loss.

The polyester side suspensions I was using had slits BUT no space between. Eventually tryed a doped fabric side suspension too. less resonant but IMO just too heavy.

It is tru that typical ribbons have serious lower frequency standing wave problems. As well they can have twist mode and side to side actions. Your side suspension is a way to deal with it and maybe with those higher mass ribbons it can work.

This area has been a passion of mine for many years. If interested heres a link showing a stroboscope view of a traditional ribbon diaphragm vs a ribbon designed to overcome the lower frequency issues. Both are free swinging ribbons (no side suspensions). The standing waves you speak of are clearly seen in the traditional ribbon design

YouTube
 
Last edited:
Lupi

On the gap thing. I have prototype large ribbons with no side suspensions that use about a 1 mm gap. They have absolutly no problem getting well below 100 hz. In the original prototypes I made the magnets adjustable to play with the effect of the gap. The magnets were adjustable on the fly as the music was playing. As the gap was closed up you would all of a suden hear the difference as sudenly the bass would come. The idea that you need a few tenths of mm I have not seen that to be tru.

As far as the gap vs distortion thing. I find you can actually reduce the distortion by using a larger gap. Sensativity suffers a bit but a very tight gap actually will raise distortion. This is actually somthig I am working on at the moment. Finding a bit larger gap in one of my designs that lowers the distortion a bit without too much sensativity loss.

Lowmass
Your experience on the ribbons is very interesting. Did you think about collecting and posting them together?
The work I read on the gap (I do not remember the reference) seemed serious, though the conclusions I found seemed strange. It was a theoretical work, so I take the results of your experiences well, also because what you say is what I intuitively thought (I never did systematic evidence about it).
However, for the goal I want to achieve (full range in CB), I think the side suspension is the only possible solution, since with a ribbon with gaps it is always necessary to add a woofer.

The polyester side suspensions I was using had slits BUT no space between. Eventually tryed a doped fabric side suspension too. less resonant but IMO just too heavy.

For the side suspensions the fabric, even the thinner, is too heavy. The very light ones have a very large weft, so not airtight. I've tried many before going to paper, which is not tight, but has much smaller hips with the same weight. In addition, the silicone-coated paper remains soft, as opposed to the fabric. The paper I use weighs 12 g / m^2, and the one I need for a 25 cm long tape weighs 0.05g. The impregnator weighs more, about 0.2g, but not all this weight goes to the moving mass, as one side of the suspension is fixed. I used these suspensions even with Alu 10 um tick, and some curves can be found at the beginning of this thread.

It is tru that typical ribbons have serious lower frequency standing wave problems. As well they can have twist mode and side to side actions. Your side suspension is a way to deal with it and maybe with those higher mass ribbons it can work.

This area has been a passion of mine for many years. If interested heres a link showing a stroboscope view of a traditional ribbon diaphragm vs a ribbon designed to overcome the lower frequency issues. Both are free swinging ribbons (no side suspensions). The standing waves you speak of are clearly seen in the traditional ribbon design

YouTube

I've seen the link, and I see clearly that the traditional ribbon vibrates in multiple modes, but the other ribbon, Dynaplane, seems stationary. Maybe they used a not very low frequency? The constructive difference between the two is just in the pleat or is there anything else?
 
Both ribbons are fed the same signal running from 100hz to 1kHz with a strope light triggerd by the same signal.Both ribbons fed same frequency and same power. The Dynaplane ribbon only seems to be static because the modes are better controlled. If you look close at the excursion at the lower frequencys you can see the dynaplane ribbon bow but very little standing wave activity.
The ribbons pleat angles are actually a range of angles that are patented. The version in the vid is a sandwich of two ribbons with pleats running in opposite directions giving what is called a "biased flute" construction. Between the two pleated layers is a visco elastic ahesive. By adjusting the pleat angles the number of contact points between the two layers can be changed. The pleat angles and the type and amout of adhesive can be manipulated to adjust both the stiffness and the damping.
 
Last edited:
Lowmass
I have looked at the dynaplane ribbon carefully, but I did not see movements, probably because of my eyes or maybe because at 100 Hz the displacements are small. Brilliant idea is that of the 2 ribbons with diagonal and crossed pleats, really innovative and to consider.
 
Wisdom Audio used to make a quasi-ribbon with three aluminum stripes and at high frequencies, only the middle stripe was active (I assume the stripes were all in series and the outer two were bypassed by a capacitor perhaps?). That might be an approach to look at if you'd like to avoid the off-axis rolloff.
 
Thanks Lupi

Yea the CB ribbon IMO has yet untapped potential. I encurage you to keep working on it. By far the best sound I have ever had was a large 2 inch wide ribbon working full range but it was mounted in a wall with the rear vented into another room. If you could get even 80% of that perf in a box it would be great.
 
Thank you bwaslo
The idea you say to me has touched me long ago, but I have set it apart for the conceptual complications involved, and because I'm not sure that total omnidirectionality is the best thing. Now I'm planning a 30mm ribbon and I'm looking to see how it goes.