Go Back   Home > Forums > >

Functional relationship between woofer Rms and Cms
Functional relationship between woofer Rms and Cms
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
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 3rd February 2021, 08:54 AM   #1
sujat is offline sujat  India
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: Bhaarat (India)
Default Functional relationship between woofer Rms and Cms

Greetings to all!

I have been trying to understand the functional relationship between woofer Rms and Cms. Other T/S parameters don't seem confusing, but these two and their effect on Qms seem to be a bit counter-intuitive, and at times even inconsistent in observations made over data of a few drivers.

My questions as of now remain:

1. Do i understand this correctly that Rms and Cms are necessarily inversely related to each other?

2. In the formula for Qms, i noticed both Rms and Cms being used as components in the denominator. Could it be reliable? My understanding of algebra is very poor, so I could have quite misunderstood it all!

So how do Rms and Cms each affect Qms?

3. What type of sonic behaviour can I expect from a driver with each of these variables I.e. Rms, Cms and Qms being lower or higher?

4. I have read conflicting statements. Some say EBP is important; whereas some say Qts is all that affects bass alignment, regardless of individual components (Qes and Qms). How can these two conflicting statements be reconciled?

5. Given that I have no means to measure parameters, and driver data doesn't mention Rms and Cms values, is it wise to rely solely on Qes, Qms, Qts & Vas?

I have been looking for clear insights in this regard, and have turned to this very useful forum as the last resort. Could any of you please help me by directing some light on this?

Thanks to all of you in advance!

Warmly,
sujat

Last edited by sujat; 3rd February 2021 at 09:02 AM. Reason: Grammatical correction
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd February 2021, 10:32 AM   #2
Scottmoose is offline Scottmoose  United Kingdom
diyAudio Member
 
Scottmoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by sujat View Post

1. Do i understand this correctly that Rms and Cms are necessarily inversely related to each other?
More or less. Cms is the suspension compliance, Rms its mechanical resistance, so they are basically reciprocals. However, both can be affected to a point by external factors (environmental conditions).

Quote:
2. In the formula for Qms, i noticed both Rms and Cms being used as components in the denominator. Could it be reliable? My understanding of algebra is very poor, so I could have quite misunderstood it all!
Yes, Small's formulas have been demonstated as reliable analogies at small-signal level for many years.

Quote:
So how do Rms and Cms each affect Qms?
Qms is the unitless mathematical expression of mechanical damping at / near resonance, ergo the mechanical mass + airload (Mms), suspension compliance (Cms) and its mechanical resistance (Rms) define the extent of this. For a static Mms the higher the compliance (which could typically be expected to go hand in hand with a lower mechanical resistance) the higher the Qm figure & the less mechanical damping there is at Fs.

Quote:
3. What type of sonic behaviour can I expect from a driver with each of these variables I.e. Rms, Cms and Qms being lower or higher?
'Sonic behaviour' has no technical meaning so you will potentially get a wide variety of responses which also have no technical meaning, some of which will be contradictory. Low Rms / high Qms is a current fad however, and has been for a while, on the principle that less mechanical resistance is a good thing and may contribute to superior performance at low drive levels. While to a point reducing mechanical losses may be a positive thing on a simplistic philosophical level, I am personally less than convinced by some of the broad assumptions made in that; since in some practical cases higher levels of mechanical damping are required for a given drive unit to function as intended. In my experience, it is also harder for manufacturers to consistently produce high compliance drive units, and as a result, they often (not always) tend to exhibit greater tolerance variability, or be more suseptible to influence from external conditions. This is not a black / white / good / bad / yes / no situation. Mechanical systems are more complicated than that unfortunately.

Quote:
4. I have read conflicting statements. Some say EBP is important; whereas some say Qts is all that affects bass alignment, regardless of individual components (Qes and Qms). How can these two conflicting statements be reconciled?
Very easily. They are not conflicting. Bass alignment is dominated by Fs, Vas and total effective Qt (Qts + any series R in circuit). EBP by contrast is not a T/S parameter, just a very simple derivation from T/S parameters that attempts to provide a rough guideline about what type of box different drivers may (or may not) be suited to. By definition it is approximate only, with a large amount of grey area involved since it assumes a certain broad set of criteria apply to all situations, which is not the case. Most experienced designers don't even waste their time calculating it since it is of no value to them.

Quote:
5. Given that I have no means to measure parameters, and driver data doesn't mention Rms and Cms values, is it wise to rely solely on Qes, Qms, Qts & Vas?
It depends on the reliability of the published (or other) data, but in terms of designing an enclosure, yes; you don't need Rms and Cms for that.
__________________
www.wodendesign.com (commercial site)
www.frugal-horn.com www.frugal-phile.com (community sites)

Last edited by Scottmoose; 3rd February 2021 at 10:39 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 4th February 2021, 06:10 AM   #3
sujat is offline sujat  India
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: Bhaarat (India)
Thanks a lot for having shared your insights, Scottmoose! I get a better idea now with much of the confusion dispelled.

I will ponder upon this and allow it to assimilate well.

Thank you once again for spending your energy and time. I feel grateful.
  Reply With Quote
Old 4th February 2021, 06:31 AM   #4
sujat is offline sujat  India
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: Bhaarat (India)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scottmoose View Post

I am personally less than convinced by some of the broad assumptions made in that; since in some practical cases higher levels of mechanical damping are required for a given drive unit to function as intended. In my experience, it is also harder for manufacturers to consistently produce high compliance drive units, and as a result, they often (not always) tend to exhibit greater tolerance variability

.
I have seen from their data that most of the Fostex drivers are very high compliance designs. I wonder how they might adhere to tolerance levels then!

Besides, this came to mind - If high compliance.. low Rms and high Cms (higher Qms & greater Vas) drivers have appropriately low Qes (and therefore fairly low Qts), and if their system compliance is lowered sufficiently through being mated with a smallish closed box suspension design, then the driver might well see a benign environment towards performing as intended.. even at higher drive levels. For here there is no tune level below which it will ever unload. Do i understand this correctly?

In this context, is it wise to say that a low compliance driver would be required to exhibit intended performance primarily where it is likely to get unloaded below the tuned box resonance.. I.e. in any other design but a closed box?
  Reply With Quote
Old 4th February 2021, 07:03 AM   #5
sujat is offline sujat  India
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: Bhaarat (India)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scottmoose View Post

It depends on the reliability of the published (or other) data, but in terms of designing an enclosure, yes; you don't need Rms and Cms for that.

I feel a bit relieved!

Now my dilemma has reduced to a narrower area. I have two 12" wide band drivers (with whizzers) available locally.

A. BL= 9.7, Re= 6.4, Xmax= 1.5 mm, Qes= 0.758,
Qms= 9.36, Qts= 0.7, Mms= 35.23 gms, Fs= 50 hz, Vas=104 l, SPL= 95 dB/2.83 V

B. BL= 11.2, Re= 6.8, Xmax= 2.5 mm, Qes= 0.92,
Qms= 3.26, Qts= 0.72, Mms= 36.7 gms, Fs= 50 hz, Vas= not mentioned(!), SPL= 95 dB/2.83 V

____

Now given these apparently similar drivers:

1. With nearly equal Mms and Fs being identical, is it safe to assume that their compliance too might be nearly identical? And therefore the Vas for driver B might be nearly identical to that of driver A? And yet the big difference in Qms values indicates something else.

2. Despite driver A having a lower Qes than driver B, the big difference in Qms results into a Qts value that is very close to each other's. In this case, although both drivers may perform quite similarly at and around resonance, as you explained, might driver A be a little more snappy and with better attack+decay at all frequencies above Fs.. owing to a lower Qes?
Attached Images
File Type: png 20210128_225925.png (168.5 KB, 32 views)
File Type: png 20210128_230000.png (157.4 KB, 34 views)

Last edited by sujat; 4th February 2021 at 07:06 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 4th February 2021, 07:40 AM   #6
bansuri is offline bansuri  Italy
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Dolceacqua
qms.png
  Reply With Quote
Old 4th February 2021, 10:10 AM   #7
sujat is offline sujat  India
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: Bhaarat (India)
Thank you for the formula, Bansuri.
  Reply to this post

Reply


Functional relationship between woofer Rms and CmsHide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools

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 Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Vas and relationship between excursion and output for vented enclosures bcodemz Subwoofers 1 21st July 2016 07:39 PM
In order to eliminate Cms-based distortion, should Cms be... 454Casull Multi-Way 1 1st January 2007 02:05 AM
Back to basics: Relationship between Amp and Impedance Ovation Solid State 22 30th January 2006 08:02 PM
relationship between mixing desk busses and soundcard ins karambos Instruments and Amps 4 31st August 2003 12:07 PM
Relationship between Fcb, F(3) and Qtc in a closed box sub Dave Bullet Subwoofers 11 9th January 2002 03:52 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 04:07 AM.


Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2021 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Resources saved on this page: MySQL 14.29%
vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2021 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ©1999-2021 diyAudio
Wiki