Hi!
I read in some thread that a high Qts was better at high frequency (imagine Fs has been properly filtered thru HP). The (brief) explanation seemed to be related to what is seen in force transmisibility plot, or more clearly, in displacement transmisibility plots.
The transmisibility of displacement from damper to mass (I guess surround and spider back to cone) is proportional to damping ratio. Does this means an improvement in surround cone reflections? if such, which are the audible effects of that?
I read in some thread that a high Qts was better at high frequency (imagine Fs has been properly filtered thru HP). The (brief) explanation seemed to be related to what is seen in force transmisibility plot, or more clearly, in displacement transmisibility plots.
The transmisibility of displacement from damper to mass (I guess surround and spider back to cone) is proportional to damping ratio. Does this means an improvement in surround cone reflections? if such, which are the audible effects of that?
The short answer is "no". When you say:
#1 mistake is that you are thinking of the wrong model. The model for force transmissibilty is a completely different one than the model for the near-resonance (near Fs) frequency response behavior of a driver. This is the classic "apples versus oranges" comparison. The "damping ratio" in one model is something completely different than the "damping ratio" in the other. Do not make this equivalence!
#2 mistake is that the Thiele-Small equivalent circuit model for the near-resonant behavior contains no modeling of what is happening at higher frequencies. You are trying to associate a parameter from a model with an actual physical-world behavior at frequencies away from where the model applies.
you are making some mistakes.
#1 mistake is that you are thinking of the wrong model. The model for force transmissibilty is a completely different one than the model for the near-resonance (near Fs) frequency response behavior of a driver. This is the classic "apples versus oranges" comparison. The "damping ratio" in one model is something completely different than the "damping ratio" in the other. Do not make this equivalence!
#2 mistake is that the Thiele-Small equivalent circuit model for the near-resonant behavior contains no modeling of what is happening at higher frequencies. You are trying to associate a parameter from a model with an actual physical-world behavior at frequencies away from where the model applies.
Last edited:
Thanks a lot!
It makes sense. I thought some things from the electroacoustic analogies that yield TS parameters may get "extension" considering for example that other model. Because TS AFAIK consider all parts on the system being linear, and i didn't think Cms or Rms would be linear along the whole spectrum i interpreted what i read that way.
And also i ended up with some highish Qts drivers (i really liked the way they beamed) so i was happy to read that, lol.
I guess aperiodic loading will be my safest bet then. That or some TL that lowers Fbox and gives me some excursión atenuation (what to do with the rear wave still to solve in that case).
And thanks TNT in the end i will aim for an active crossover (software based) because i aim for a lowish Fcross (about 200-650 Hz), that should give me enough room to attain the desired Fsys attenuation .
It makes sense. I thought some things from the electroacoustic analogies that yield TS parameters may get "extension" considering for example that other model. Because TS AFAIK consider all parts on the system being linear, and i didn't think Cms or Rms would be linear along the whole spectrum i interpreted what i read that way.
And also i ended up with some highish Qts drivers (i really liked the way they beamed) so i was happy to read that, lol.
I guess aperiodic loading will be my safest bet then. That or some TL that lowers Fbox and gives me some excursión atenuation (what to do with the rear wave still to solve in that case).
And thanks TNT in the end i will aim for an active crossover (software based) because i aim for a lowish Fcross (about 200-650 Hz), that should give me enough room to attain the desired Fsys attenuation .