Electronic compensation of high QTC woofer?

[pulexirritans]

I bought a 9"and supposedly a SOTA woofer (Vienna acoustics ) used in some $17k speakers (Klimt) and its measured QTC is around 1.5 or so . I was trying to figure out the design objectives behind that design....

Profit?

 

[limono]

Profit?

I don't think so. The speaker garnered some excellent reviews and it is supposedly a SOTA design in it's class .
The Rehedko speakers I have and like quite a bit have the same kind of 10" woofer. 1.3 Qts and 105 Hz Fs .
It is a fringe movement in the speaker design I assume .

 

[YSDR]

I don't think so. The speaker garnered some excellent reviews and it is supposedly a SOTA design in it's class .
The Rehedko speakers I have and like quite a bit have the same kind of 10" woofer. 1.3 Qts and 105 Hz Fs .
It is a fringe movement in the speaker design I assume .

Sometimes a less 'perfect' loudspeaker is preferable by the manufacturers an the listeners too, this depends on more things.

 

[YSDR]

If we take a close look, it turns out that a very few manufacturers use textbook 'optimal' bass alignments for their commercial loudspeakers.
Of course, there are many counter-examples.

 

[KSTR]

But the box still rings at its inherent frequency and Q from any stimulation that may come its way, in the pure sound signal or otherwise.

Exactly. The acoustic alignment hasn't changed, and the system will follow that to every external -- to the drive signal -- exitation (including the woofer's own distortion, overload recovery etc). The only way to change it would be using an amp with some negative output impedance.

But, a system Q of 1.5 is still quite benign and considered as reasonably well-damped and pre-correction via EQ will work well with little additional side-effects. Once you get above a Q of 3...4 things start to get ugly and pre-correction starts to get sensitive to dynamic parameter shifts.