• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

"Fast" woofers.

Kip

Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2023
Messages
37
Likes
10
Location
Colorado
Welcome :)

If you read the rest of the thread (it's not particularly long) and ask specific questions on points that need clarification, you will come to see how no violation of physics is required.

That said, I'll try a simple appeal to intuition. Consider a subwoofer playing a 100Hz tone. The driver decelerates, stops, and accelerates in the other direction 200 times every second, or once every 5 milliseconds. Any subwoofer can do this just fine, and play at frequencies much higher than 100Hz. We often model a driver as a piston, but it's very much not like the piston in a car as there is no drive shaft or flywheel that would store angular momentum. The motor directly decelerates and accelerates the cone every cycle.

ps. In an interesting twist, it turns out the motor's max power, or its ability to accelerate the cone, has nothing to do with what frequency a driver can play, only the SPL it can generate.

Doesn't a spectral decay plot show how fast the driver, or overall system goes silent after the tone(s) have stoppped.
If so, I still see no reason to attempt exempting subwoofers from what is considered "fast".

That said, I'll try a simple appeal to intuition.
Are engineers designing speakers wasting their time collecting the data to make the spectral decay chart ?
 
Last edited:

NTK

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Messages
2,660
Likes
5,820
Location
US East
Doesn't a spectral decay plot show how fast the driver, or overall system goes silent after the tone(s) have stoppped.
If so, I still see no reason to attempt exempting subwoofers from what is considered "fast".

That said, I'll try a simple appeal to intuition.
Are engineers designing speakers wasting their time collecting the data to make the spectral decay chart ?
Dr. Toole's AVSForum post.

toole.png
 

Kip

Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2023
Messages
37
Likes
10
Location
Colorado
Well I guess everyone has it wrong. Maybe selling speakers is a better idea than selling books ? While I agree there is a huge can of worms containing contention about how much is perceived by one's ears, the laws of inertial are not meaningless.
If there is no information to be obtained, wouldn't all the plots look the same ?
Is there a website called APR Audio Perception Review ??
 

NTK

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Messages
2,660
Likes
5,820
Location
US East
Well I guess everyone has it wrong. Maybe selling speakers is a better idea than selling books. While I agree there is a huge can of worms containing contention about how much is perceived by one's ears, the laws of inertial are not meaningless.
So you think you are right and everyone else is wrong? :facepalm:

If there is no information to be obtained, wouldn't all the plots look the same ?
Do you know how waterfall plots (or "spectral decay" plots) are generated?

Is there a website called APR Audio Perception Review ??
You are welcome to start your own ;)
 
Last edited:

BDWoody

Chief Cat Herder
Moderator
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 9, 2019
Messages
6,948
Likes
22,625
Location
Mid-Atlantic, USA. (Maryland)

fpitas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 7, 2022
Messages
9,885
Likes
14,191
Location
Northern Virginia, USA
Doesn't a spectral decay plot show how fast the driver, or overall system goes silent after the tone(s) have stoppped.
If so, I still see no reason to attempt exempting subwoofers from what is considered "fast".

That said, I'll try a simple appeal to intuition.
Are engineers designing speakers wasting their time collecting the data to make the spectral decay chart ?
No, but the crossover makes a huge impact on spectral decay, too. As will the room.
 

fpitas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 7, 2022
Messages
9,885
Likes
14,191
Location
Northern Virginia, USA
Isnt this what servo-woofers do?
Well...not exactly. Servo woofers use some form of negative feedback to linearize the cone motion. I'm not sure how we got to inertia, that's covered in the driver frequency response.
 

Kip

Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2023
Messages
37
Likes
10
Location
Colorado
So you think you are right and everyone else is wrong? :facepalm:


Do you know how waterfall plots (or "spectral decay" plots) are generated?


You are welcome to start your own ;)
Laws of inertia are not a matter of opinion. Why do you think there is considerable analysis of the tradeoffs of different cone material construction ?
 

fpitas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 7, 2022
Messages
9,885
Likes
14,191
Location
Northern Virginia, USA

NTK

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Messages
2,660
Likes
5,820
Location
US East
Laws of inertia are not a matter of opinion. Why do you think there is considerable analysis of the tradeoffs of different cone material construction ?
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you want to be here to learn something instead of in a crusade to telling everyone here that they are all wrong.

I am assuming you don't full understand what I wrote in post #39. The graphs below is a slightly different version of it. I'll explain it in detail this time.

In this case again I have a single cycle sine burst (blue curve). It starts abruptly and stops abruptly. This sine burst signal is split into two components -- the low and high frequency components. The crossover filter used is linear phase to simplify things. The crossover frequency is 2.5X the fundamental frequency of the sine burst.

In the top plot, the orange curve is the low frequency (low passed) components, and the green curve is the high frequency components. Because the xo frequency is 2.5x that of the fundamental, the majority of the signal energy is in the low passed components. You can see that there is no abrupt changes in the orange curve. That is the portion of the signal handled by the woofer. The green curve is the portion of the signal handled by the mid-range/tweeter, which can reproduce higher frequencies and therefore is much better at reproducing the abrupt changes.

You can see that the sum of the orange curve and the green curve equals to the blue curve, which is the original signal. The woofer doesn't need to be "fast". It only needs to faithfully reproduce the low passed components, which is "slow". The bottom plot is the signals represented in the frequency domain. The vertical dotted line is where the crossover is.

No law of physics is harmed in the production of this simulation.

sine_burst.png

"A fast driver needs a light cone" is another audio myth. See Purifi's blog post.
 

Geert

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 20, 2020
Messages
1,938
Likes
3,526
Laws of inertia are not a matter of opinion. Why do you think there is considerable analysis of the tradeoffs of different cone material construction ?

Because of other attributes like cone breakup and resonances.
 

fpitas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 7, 2022
Messages
9,885
Likes
14,191
Location
Northern Virginia, USA
Because of other attributes like cone breakup and resonances.
Polar patter, too. The stiff cones act more like a true piston below the first breakup frequency. Of course, they also tend to have a spectacular resonance at a few kHz.
 

fpitas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 7, 2022
Messages
9,885
Likes
14,191
Location
Northern Virginia, USA
"Laws" of physics, you say?
guidelines.jpg


Oh, my mistake! I was thinkin' I was on one of those audiophile websites!
;) :cool:
Not even guidelines. Part of my job as an engineer is to convince people that physics has actual laws. It's surprising how many are completely gulled.
 

mhardy6647

Grand Contributor
Joined
Dec 12, 2019
Messages
11,217
Likes
24,182
Not even guidelines. Part of my job as an engineer is to convince people that physics has actual laws. It's surprising how many are completely gulled.
I wish the "battery technology" industry would be honest with itself -- and its investors -- about those pesky law things. ;)
... but I digress.

My point ;) (of course) -- some designers treat the laws as nice to haves.
Bless their hearts.
 

Geert

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 20, 2020
Messages
1,938
Likes
3,526
Part of my job as an engineer is to convince people that physics has actual laws.

You're misguided, it's only our current and very limited understanding of things. You need to be more open minded ;)
 

ex audiophile

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 28, 2017
Messages
635
Likes
805
Welcome :)

If you read the rest of the thread (it's not particularly long) and ask specific questions on points that need clarification, you will come to see how no violation of physics is required.

That said, I'll try a simple appeal to intuition. Consider a subwoofer playing a 100Hz tone. The driver decelerates, stops, and accelerates in the other direction 200 times every second, or once every 5 milliseconds. Any subwoofer can do this just fine, and play at frequencies much higher than 100Hz. We often model a driver as a piston, but it's very much not like the piston in a car as there is no drive shaft or flywheel that would store angular momentum. The motor directly decelerates and accelerates the cone every cycle.

ps. In an interesting twist, it turns out the motor's max power, or its ability to accelerate the cone, has nothing to do with what frequency a driver can play, only the SPL it can generate.
At first glance it seems intuitive that smaller cones are able to move "faster" than larger ones, however given that the primary purpose of the driver is to move air, I've read and talked with knowledgable folks (Randy at JL Audio for instance) that larger cones can move more air with less excursion and hence would have an advantage over smaller cones that have to move a longer distance to move as much air. Does this play a role in this discussion (I am just an enthusiastic reader, no engineering knowledge).
 
Top Bottom