Earl, it's just a name. Would you rahter call it the difference between the energy of the system at time t and that of the equilibrium state? Some people say sky blue, some say ligth blue. Some say electromagnetic radiation of what ever wave length.
You see, this is precisely what I said the meaning was from the very begining, but I was told that I was wrong. I have no tyrouble with the term the way that you use it above. I have had some problems with the loose way that it has been used.
Oh boy
You seem to have some even more confuse ideas regarding "storage" I'd say
😀
The energy radiated (as sound) is *not* stored - also *not* the energy that is needed to overcome mechanical dampening losses (the thermal energy generated thereof put aside as we never ever get it back as diaphragm motion) and of course also *not* the energy directly wasted due to heating the coil.
So - we definitely have one part of energy that passes the system without getting stored and another part of energy *stored* (mechanically) - but again - that points *alone* are pretty meaningless with respect to sound quality.
Quite in contrary to what some and SL in particular may think about...
🙂
Earl - looking at varying velocity of a system at "an infinitesimal amount of time" to determine this velocity at this very time slot - would you say "That seems inconsistant with the words definition" of velocity ???
😉
Michael
Last edited:
To this too I say, I don't have a problem here - its just an adjective. The problem that I have is using this term as if it had some physical meaning but then declining to precisely define that meaning. I said from the very begining that the way it was being used, it did not have a concrete meaning and it would be better to just let it drop. You know instead of calling it "stored" call it " ". That I understand.
I think that what people are trying to get at is the difference in the energy in components that are conservative versus nonconservative. These are a Physicists terms, are very precise and quite useful. Mass, springs, caps, inductors are all conservative, they cannot disipate energy and as such their energy is conserved. One could say that the energy is "stored", only in the sense that these components are unconnected to any other components, i,e, voltage stored in a cap, or a mass moving through free space. But in a circuit or in resonant system the energy will leave the component where it enters another component only to be returned again. It is never "stored" anywhere, it is constantly moving. If there are nonconseravtive elements present then this energy will be continually disapated until it is gone or replaced. I don't see "storage" in this model. But if its just a word then lets call it "John's Energy" - works for me (no offense to John, I have no doubt that he understands the concepts. "Earl's Energy"? - no, I don't think so.)
As regards transducers, "energy storage" seems to be used to malign any loudspeaker driver that has out-of-band resonances, and in common audio usage seems to indicate that the problem is inherent and uncorrectable in a system. I too believe this term sows confusion and I honestly have trouble seeing what use the term might have in explaining anything. Talking in terms of resonances (large and small) or response abberations seems to me to be more useful.
Going back to where this B**S was coined - SL did use it to characterize / sort out some ill behaviour of speakers undergoing a certain test signal (sine/cosin burst IIRC).
As we do not know if those speakers were any equalized to flat (do not remember that it could have been) this test is only indicative to those test signals at the frequencies used.
So - we do not exactly know (at least *I* don't) if he happen to measure at whichever *normal* (min phase) resonance or if he possibly was just measuring delay effects that arbitrary did fit the stimulus and measurement window
Michael
As we do not know if those speakers were any equalized to flat (do not remember that it could have been) this test is only indicative to those test signals at the frequencies used.
So - we do not exactly know (at least *I* don't) if he happen to measure at whichever *normal* (min phase) resonance or if he possibly was just measuring delay effects that arbitrary did fit the stimulus and measurement window
Michael
Why not use good old fashioned "kinetic" and "potential" energy to describe the spring/weight stuff, just to cut through the terminological confusion? That leaves "stored energy" for the funny stuff that shows up after a non-minimum time delay.
Because - as pointed out above - there is *always* stored energy present in any real world speaker system - simply because its *needed* for operation (be it flawless or not).
Hence the monumental confusion - "stored energy" is a *must* - but SL decided to call it an ill effect *in general*
(reminds me on an other "big" boy and his personal issue regarding diffraction 😀)
Michael
Hence the monumental confusion - "stored energy" is a *must* - but SL decided to call it an ill effect *in general*
(reminds me on an other "big" boy and his personal issue regarding diffraction 😀)
Michael
Last edited:
As I have said the better terminology is linear distortion. The deviation of the linear aspect of the system form the desired target.
It is *not* a "must", and it *is* an ill effect "in general". You need only look at the impulse response tests that SL uses as examples to *see* what he is talking about . . . sound being radiated from a driver different from *and after* the original driving signal. He calls it "stored" because it is delayed . . . the energy is retained somewhere in the mechanical system for the time between the initial impulse and its being radiated . . . and it is usually additionally distorted during that retention period. There are several mechanisms by which that retention can occur . . . "stored energy" is the inclusive (collective) term for all of them. Having more precise and specific terms for individual distortion mechanisms wouldn't hurt, but neither would it change the meaning of "stored energy" as a more encompassing term.
Michael, If you read your own post, standing from SL's view, you will see that you are getting more personal attacks rather than attacking the issue. I know people do that when they are too old to learn, but...🙄
My experiments indicate stored energy is a problem, and the solution is how to keep this duration as short as adequate, and how to disspate it with minimum degradation to sound quality. Data provided by others can prove valuable even though the diagnosis might not be 100% correct.
Personally, I'd like to see your data that you think support you claims. It seems sad that for someone like you whom started out with simulations never went far enough to actually provide continued series of measurements.
Well, traditional EQ such as parametric type cannot do that efficiently. If we study cone breakup a bit more, resonance is due to reflection of bending mode from the edge. We can see that the right input at the right time can actually absorb that reflection significantly, which is basically what the proper EQ can do. Even though it is not possible to cancel it 100%, the reduction of effects is significant.
Gosh, I wish I knew earlier. The world fair last year wore me out, 6~24 for 3 days plus visiting friends and relative in other areas. Food in Shianghi is great. It would be interesting to try out different styles every time you visit. We have about 9000 more posts to go, so let's get to work.😱 Maybe also a last minute business request might bring me there.😀
Maybe, in some sense. Most of the "stored" energy is probably stored in elastic deformation and rebound . . . but there are a lot of potential elastic elements with a variety of deformation modes in a loudspeaker, many of which may be active, and interactive, at the same time. And it's further complicated by the fact that we're not looking at the motion of any particular point, but the acoustic radiation from at least two semi-independently deforming surfaces, the cone and the surround, which are mechanically attached to other potentially resonant elements. A radial wave on the surround can itself deform the cone, the cone can decouple radially and tangentially in a variety of vibrating modes, there can be cavity resonances between the cone, magnet and basket, frame and baffle resonances and more. A weight and a spring it ain't.
Hello Pano,
Assuming your question is straight up, this is my view.
Resonance is all about Quality Factor. Some point to the technical definition of Q including “Stored Energy” others feel that the term “Stored Energy” is missed used.
Beyond that the discussion seems to have decayed into prideful posing and claims of superior knowledge.
I suggest a little personal fact checking, for example is a Q greater than 1 really perceptual motion? When the fact checking is complete, let’s leave personality and bad examples behind.
Now let’s go build and test some speakers.
DT
All just for fun!
Assuming your question is straight up, this is my view.
Resonance is all about Quality Factor. Some point to the technical definition of Q including “Stored Energy” others feel that the term “Stored Energy” is missed used.
Beyond that the discussion seems to have decayed into prideful posing and claims of superior knowledge.
I suggest a little personal fact checking, for example is a Q greater than 1 really perceptual motion? When the fact checking is complete, let’s leave personality and bad examples behind.
Now let’s go build and test some speakers.
DT
All just for fun!
Substituting SL by Toole as the main reference point and icon of „frequency domain thinking“ does not help any in the long run I'd say – all you guys clearly suffer from being heavily locked in this „frequency domain thinking“ thing.
BTW – from time to time it would be nice to see you showing insight when you've been corrected in massive errors – you wouldn't loose anything.
Michael
BTW – from time to time it would be nice to see you showing insight when you've been corrected in massive errors – you wouldn't loose anything.
Michael
If you read it that way you missed the point.
My post was the pin point sum up of what I laid out with respect to "storage" of energy in any real world loudspeaker system over the course of the last few pages here.
I also corrected a loooot of misinterpretations regarding "storage" at the basis of the underlaying technical mechanism.
If you seriously like to expand your sight of view in "time domain thinking" - you find them (plenty of them and way more than enough to prove my point) in my paper :
Audio and Loudspeaker Design Guide Lines
If you still "can't get it" - I definitely can't help you any - but you know that already...
🙂
Michael
- Status
- Not open for further replies.