or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › DIY Speakers and Subs › Fast bass, slow bass...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Fast bass, slow bass...

post #1 of 54
Thread Starter 
Over at SpeakerDesignWorks.com, there is an article on sealed vs. vented enclosure designs. Among other things, this article shows the response of a driver in three enclosures.



Here is the description of the graphic from the site:

In a burst plot, a sine wave is suddenly started at the origin (0 volts) and stops just as fast after a few cycles. The light blue trace is the input signal, and of course the ideal driver would track this response perfectly. Unfortunately, trivial details such as mass and inertia get in the way, so this doesnt happen. The cone takes a cycle or so to get up to speed, and likewise when the signal stops. How quickly it responds to the changes is an indication of its transient response. The magenta trace is the RS225 in the sealed enclosure Qtc .707. The white trace is the vented enclosure described previously. The Green trace is the RS225 in a traditional QB3 alignment. Note that while the low tuned alignment is not quite as good as the sealed alignment, it is far superior to the QB3 response, -which, although not shown, oscillates for yet another half cycle before settling down.

While the focus is on the differences between the three curves, what is perhaps more interesting is the behavior of the curves relative to the input signal.

The author suggests that the delay in amplitude response is attributable to mass and inertia. Extrapolating from his conclusion, lighter cones that have less mass and in turn less inertia will more quickly get their amplitude to match the input signal while a heavier cone with more mass and in turn more inertia will take longer to match the input signal in amplitude.

What is tricky about this amplitude distortion is that it doesn't show up in the traditional tests for distortion. It is not harmonic distortion and since after a couple of cycles it matches the input signal in amplitude, it won't show up in the typical multi-cycle burst test.

This may help explain why drivers with lighter moving masses and stronger motors tend to have a little bit more zip in the upper bass, such as HSU employs in his mid-bass module.

...

The authors observation that the sealed enclosure, the magenta trace, rises more quickly and stops more quickly is consistent with the observation that sealed enclosures have "faster" bass, if by that we mean how quickly the driver gets up to full amplitude and how quickly it stops when the signal stops.

This is a test of one driver in several different enclosures and not a comparison between drivers that are optimized for various enclosures, so it can't be said that sealed has better transient response universally, simply that for a particular driver, the sealed enclosure will have better transient response.

Thoughts?
LL
post #2 of 54
Interesting read and nice find, John.

Although imo some of that characteristic of the lighter, pro-style woofers compared to the heavier cones 'subs' does strike me as common sense. It's nice to see a good writeup on something like this. I'll check out the link when I'm not at work but good stuff.
post #3 of 54
I've read this before, and it seemed to agree with my intuition. I've often looked at mass, compliance, and BL when considering drivers. I have wondered if it also applies to higher frequencies. You hear the word detail thrown around. Perhaps a heavy stiff suspension doesn't reveal the details like a light compliant one would. Because it doesn't get moving with such small signal inputs. Not quite what the article is about, but something it makes me think about. I've heard people say they have to turn up certain systems quite loud to get detail. Possibly to get those signals high enough for the heavy driver to react well enough.
post #4 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by LTD02 View Post

In a burst plot, a sine wave is suddenly started at the origin (0 volts) and stops just as fast after a few cycles. The light blue trace is the input signal, and of course the ideal driver would track this response perfectly. Unfortunately, trivial details such as mass and inertia get in the way, so this doesnt happen. The cone takes a cycle or so to get up to speed, and likewise when the signal stops. How quickly it responds to the changes is an indication of its transient response. The magenta trace is the RS225 in the sealed enclosure Qtc .707. The white trace is the vented enclosure described previously. The Green trace is the RS225 in a traditional QB3 alignment. Note that while the low tuned alignment is not quite as good as the sealed alignment, it is far superior to the QB3 response, -which, although not shown, oscillates for yet another half cycle before settling down.

While the focus is on the differences between the three curves, what is perhaps more interesting is the behavior of the curves relative to the input signal.

The author suggests that the delay in amplitude response is attributable to mass and inertia. Extrapolating from his conclusion, lighter cones that have less mass and in turn less inertia will more quickly get their amplitude to match the input signal while a heavier cone with more mass and in turn more inertia will take longer to match the input signal in amplitude.

This may help explain why drivers with lighter moving masses and stronger motors tend to have a little bit more zip in the upper bass, such as HSU employs in his mid-bass module.
...

The authors observation that the sealed enclosure, the magenta trace, rises more quickly and stops more quickly is consistent with the observation that sealed enclosures have "faster" bass, if by that we mean how quickly the driver gets up to full amplitude and how quickly it stops when the signal stops.

This is a test of one driver in several different enclosures and not a comparison between drivers that are optimized for various enclosures, so it can't be said that sealed has better transient response universally, simply that for a particular driver, the sealed enclosure will have better transient response.

Thoughts?

Aaaack! Is even the DIY community still confused on this one?

While the signals do have different rise and settling behavior, the above author completely missed the WHY. The common error made here in comparing to the electrical input signal greatly confuses the issue. While the comparison does make a case for differing bandwidth and order designs, there is zero info that should infer mass/inertia or motor strength are to blame. This is simply bandwidth and roll off qualities seen in any Fourier decomposition.

The blue reference signal is not what we should compare to. We should look at the input signal with at least a comparable low pass filter that mimics the high frequency response of the woofer. Even better is to electronically low pass the driver under test within its pass band as it might be used in practice so the roll off and associated behavior is known. The woofer is not a full range speaker, and is not supposed to perfectly match the displayed waveform unless it extends past 10kHz and is used that high.

FACT: You cannot create the sharp start/stop shape at each end of the blue waveform without extended high frequency content. Right off the top, part of the softening of each end is the lack of high frequency content.

This is why the tone bursts used by Keele, Linkwitz and the CEA measurements ramp up and down over 5-6 cycles to keep the required bandwidth of the signal within the range of interest (ie ~1/3rd octave wide).

Quite to the contrary of what is asserted, you could add some mass to the RS225 woofer, use a larger sealed box resulting in the same Qb, and you would BETTER follow the input signal.
post #5 of 54
Thread Starter 
"Perhaps a heavy stiff suspension doesn't reveal the details like a light compliant one would."

what you say is consistent with many subjective reports of many of the best drivers. some of the best, like the old altec 416-8c had a compliance of 637 um/n or the jbl 2245 at 439 um/n, which are off the charts by most of today's standards, subjectively were incredible at detail. like you say, a slightly different but related topic.
post #6 of 54
Thread Starter 
"Aaaack! Is even the DIY community still confused on this one?"

the corner behavior isn't the focus. the focus is how long it takes for the driver to reach the amplitude of the input signal.

here is a 40hz sine wave (top) and the same 40hz sine wave low passed 2nd order at ~80hz.

you can see that all the high frequencies required to make the corner are gone, but the amplitude of the wave rises to its full peak at the first crest. it does not require several cycles to "build up" amplitude.


LL
post #7 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by LTD02 View Post

"Aaaack! Is even the DIY community still confused on this one?"

the corner behavior isn't the focus. the focus is how long it takes for the driver to reach the amplitude of the input signal.

All one in the same. The ramping up of the signal and tailing down happen with different shapes due to the bandwidth of the playback device and the relative phase shift through the spectrum. Any driver with the exact same frequency response and phase response will have the same behavior, even if it's 10x heavier or 10x lighter.
post #8 of 54
It is a nice graph. But, these are differences that most people will never really get to evaluate. There are more variables than simply moving mass at play. Motor Strength, inductance, suspension compliance, air spring (or not), etc.

Comparing a light moving mass, higher Fs, high sensitivity driver to a heavier moving mass, lower Fs, lower sensitivity driver is just not a good apples/apples. They are designed for different things. One is designed for more output at higher frequencies for a given input signal. The other is designed to be able to generate more output for a given inout signal at lower frequencies. Even this comparison is waayy too simplified.

For more info on the subject, you need to pick through some of this:

http://www.baudline.com/erik/bass/thomas_danley.html

Or read what Mark said above.

I tell folks the following:

If you do not have near identical clean (read: low distortion, however you want to measure it, but a baseline must be set, whatever it is) output and extension with flat frequency response, you cannot really compare two alignments with regards to group delay, transient response, etc. without significant bias. This means that in a small room, the 2 compared speakers must be in the exact same location when being compared, as differing locations could lead to differing freq responses. Especially in small rooms. Outdoors, not so much.

I don't know of too many folks who have compared 2 LF (or fullrange, or whatever) units that have fulfilled the above criteria.

Also, there's what I call the 'paraxial criteria' of audio. The less the driver has to move, the more accurate the reproduction of the signal, just like in optics, the closer you are to the optical axis, the lower the aberrations. Very large Xmax drivers may be great for spl, but not necessarily for 'starting and stopping on a dime' like a 2226H.... Then again, not apples/apples, and different freq ranges with differing excursion needs, and......you can go round and round on this topic. Just too many variables. In general, spread the load (be it with a horn/waveguide or multiples) and don't make a driver work too hard...


JSS
post #9 of 54
^^^^^^^

And this is what I absolutely LOVE about audio.
post #10 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by LTD02 View Post

"Aaaack! Is even the DIY community still confused on this one?"

the corner behavior isn't the focus. the focus is how long it takes for the driver to reach the amplitude of the input signal.

here is a 40hz sine wave (top) and the same 40hz sine wave low passed 2nd order at ~80hz.

you can see that all the high frequencies required to make the corner are gone, but the amplitude of the wave rises to its full peak at the first crest. it does not require several cycles to "build up" amplitude.


Thanks for the graphs, that's 1/4 of the way there. Now include the stop of the waveform (sine wave x step function of t=3 periods) and we're 1/2 way there.

Next add a 30Hz 2nd order high pass with Q=0.7 and then overlay that with a 30Hz 4th order Butterworth high pass. Now shift the Fc of the high pass to 15Hz and compare...

If you keep playing and compare different Q values at the same frequency, you can create various behaviors, and they all follow the response shape of the driver and box tuning. Any driver with a Q of 0.7 and Fb of 30Hz and the same high frequency extension will give the same waveform for this test, no matter how heavy/light, weak/strong the driver is. What changes with those variables is box size to achieve the alignment and the Voltage required to produce the same level.
post #11 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Seaton View Post

While the signals do have different rise and settling behavior, the above author completely missed the WHY. The common error made here in comparing to the electrical input signal greatly confuses the issue. While the comparison does make a case for differing bandwidth and order designs, there is zero info that should infer mass/inertia or motor strength are to blame. This is simply bandwidth and roll off qualities seen in any Fourier decomposition.

The blue reference signal is not what we should compare to. We should look at the input signal with at least a comparable low pass filter that mimics the high frequency response of the woofer. Even better is to electronically low pass the driver under test within its pass band as it might be used in practice so the roll off and associated behavior is known. The woofer is not a full range speaker, and is not supposed to perfectly match the displayed waveform unless it extends past 10kHz and is used that high.

FACT: You cannot create the sharp start/stop shape at each end of the blue waveform without extended high frequency content. Right off the top, part of the softening of each end is the lack of high frequency content.

Quite to the contrary of what is asserted, you could add some mass to the RS225 woofer, use a larger sealed box resulting in the same Qb, and you would BETTER follow the input signal.

Quote:


Any driver with a Q of 0.7 and Fb of 30Hz and the same high frequency extension will give the same waveform for this test, no matter how heavy/light, weak/strong the driver is. What changes with those variables is box size to achieve the alignment and the Voltage required to produce the same level.

I agree wholeheartedly. IF the objective was the attempt at tracing the input signal you would need a single loudspeaker capable of a huge bandwidth (super low, maybe even negative, inductance) in order to do so. Well put Mark.
post #12 of 54
The main problem with quantifying 'fast' versus 'slow' bass is that the cues that our ear/brain use to make that determination don't come from the frequencies below 80 Hz, they come from the frequencies from roughly 80 to 500Hz. So yes, transient response is very important, but not the transient response of the subs, but rather the transient response of the midbasses. Earl Geddes would have a field day over this one.
post #13 of 54
Somewhere in the archives is a thread that examined this verycomprehensively; I wondered how a vented box good work very well, as it's a spring/mass system that takes a number of cycles to pump up to full amplitude.

Illka provided some very interesting analyses and plots that showed the acoustic outputs for the first few cycles of sealed and vented systems.
post #14 of 54
Thread Starter 
i'm using audacity for this analysis and it isn't quite as flexible as we would like, but this is the behavior with two high passes (essentially a second order high pass) added to the low passed response from the previous graphic. top graphic no eq. bottom graphic high and low passed.

mark identified correctly that the high pass leads to the amplitude build up that is shown in the op. since these are theoretical/electrical signals and they pretty much match the behavior of the drivers in the op, it seems reasonably safe to conclude that this is the dominating effect.

i don't have any intuition for fourier transforms, so this behavior seems quite alien to me. it is what it is though.

thanks mark for weighing in on this one.


LL
post #15 of 54
Fascinating stuff, i learned something new today Once again what seems logical is not necessarily the truth.
post #16 of 54
One error to avoid in stuff like this. "A sine wave that starts at..." is most definitely NOT a sine wave. Sine waves don't start or end. Don't be fooled into thinking that using a sinusoid shape in a part of the waveshape limits you to effects near the sinusoid's frequency or period. This is maybe a gated sinewave, which contains energy over a much wider bandwidth than a sinewave (which has ideally, none), so you can't make conclusions about characteristics of just the highpass natures of the types of boxes.
post #17 of 54
Great posts Mark.





Quote:
Originally Posted by noah katz View Post

Somewhere in the archives is a thread that examined this verycomprehensively; I wondered how a vented box good work very well, as it's a spring/mass system that takes a number of cycles to pump up to full amplitude.

Illka provided some very interesting analyses and plots that showed the acoustic outputs for the first few cycles of sealed and vented systems.

I seem to remember that one. No idea what it was called or when though. It's been a few years at least.
post #18 of 54
What Mark said.

Hate to be a repetitive pedant, but people really should read up on linear systems, particularly the fundamental frequency-time duality, if they really care to understand this stuff. Largely, if you know the FR, you can infer the time-domain response, and vice versa. Raw intuition can be misleading, sometimes grossly so. And what's commonly "known" can be wrong.

And one other thing. Practically, all of this is likely swamped out by what the system does in the room at the listening position, which is what really matters. As long as a given woofer can be cleanly driven to excursion and in-room response properly eq'd, alignment doesn't really play. Many ways to skin the cat: cubic inches, cubic dollars, cubic sweat...
post #19 of 54
Once again Mark's knowledge never ceases to amaze me!
post #20 of 54
post #21 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by tlag View Post

practically, all of this is likely swamped out by what the system does in the room at the listening position, which is what really matters. As long as a given woofer can be cleanly driven to excursion and in-room response properly eq'd, alignment doesn't really play. Many ways to skin the cat: Cubic inches, cubic dollars, cubic sweat...

^^^
this.

JSS
post #22 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Seaton View Post

Aaaack!

This^^^

Bosso
post #23 of 54
I can comment more later, the subject of the original post is at least one that is consitent and can be predicted. It's a known factor.

People often ignore eddy currents and their effect on the position of the driver. As current flows through the VC it becomes an electromagnet. The more current, the stronger the magnet. This magnet is then moved up and down in the gap many times per second. As it does this, the magnetic field created by the VC pushes the permanent magnetic field around which is called modulation. The permanent magnetic field that propels the VC is continually moving and changing. As this happens the VC is no longer able to be positioned where it should be.





This is something that cannot be corrected for other than to eliminate the eddy currents. Will post more later on this as I find my other FEA info.
post #24 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by LTD02 View Post

This is a test of one driver in several different enclosures and not a comparison between drivers that are optimized for various enclosures, so it can't be said that sealed has better transient response universally, simply that for a particular driver, the sealed enclosure will have better transient response.

Thoughts?

I disagree with your last statement here. I don't think it's possible for a ported subwoofer to have better transient response than a (well made) sealed subwoofer, regardless of driver. I could be wrong, and would love to be educated on this. Perhaps it's related to EBP or Qts.. ?
post #25 of 54
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bossobass View Post

This^^^

Bosso

"aack" implies a surprise, like everybody is an expert on fourier analysis. i take issue with that. you are just piling on. at least mark had something useful to contribute.

if you want to add to the conversation, perhaps you can share with us why a high pass filter lowers the amplitude of the first wave of the cycle in the picture in the op.
post #26 of 54
Thread Starter 
"I disagree with your last statement here. I don't think it's possible for a ported subwoofer to have better transient response than a (well made) sealed subwoofer, regardless of driver."

you have to present some data or at least a theory, otherwise the statement is just a platitude and doesn't get us anywhere.

take a dayton dvc, put it in a sealed cab with a q=0.70, that is a well made sealed option. take the same driver and put it a 6 cubic foot ported enclosure tuned to around 18hz. observe the group delay. it is lower in the upper bass for the ported enclosure.
post #27 of 54
Thread Starter 
"...really should read up on linear systems, particularly the fundamental frequency-time duality, if they really care to understand this stuff."

got a good link or two?

"As long as a given woofer can be cleanly driven..."

that was part of the question in the op. the question was about the amplitude of the trace with respect to the signal. it did not follow, so i questioned if it was a form of distortion. apparently, it is the result of the rolloff of the speaker much below the test frequency that causes this behavior.
post #28 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by LTD02 View Post

"I disagree with your last statement here. I don't think it's possible for a ported subwoofer to have better transient response than a (well made) sealed subwoofer, regardless of driver."

you have to present some data or at least a theory, otherwise the statement is just a platitude and doesn't get us anywhere.

+1. The statement also implies that there's an inherent benefit to better transient response in a sub. Just because it looks better on a chart doesn't mean it sounds better.
post #29 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by LTD02 View Post

"aack" implies a surprise, like everybody is an expert on fourier analysis. i take issue with that. you are just piling on. at least mark had something useful to contribute.

if you want to add to the conversation, perhaps you can share with us why a high pass filter lowers the amplitude of the first wave of the cycle in the picture in the op.

I'm sorry, but I don't need you to interpret Mark's thoughts for me. What he was implying, and we know this because he went on to explain it, is that this sort of nonsense belongs in a forum where the subject hasn't been beaten to death for a decade.

Try searching the archives.

I don't have to present anything. If you want to continue to muddy the waters and confuse everyone who reads your thought-for-the-day posts, then take responsibility and follow up when you realize you were just rambling.

You can start by getting the term 'transient response' correct and stop referring to it when you actually mean dynamic tracking. That would have saved Mark a lot of typing.

Bosso
post #30 of 54
Thread Starter 
"I'm sorry..."

forgiven.

"What he was implying, and we know this because he went on to explain it, is that this sort of nonsense belongs in a forum where the subject hasn't been beaten to death for a decade."

that is not what he said. he explained what was going on in the picture in order to help me understand and we worked forward and now i have a better understanding.

"If you want to continue to muddy the waters and confuse everyone who reads your thought-for-the-day posts, then take responsibility and follow up when you realize you were just rambling."

obviously you didn't read the thread. that is exactly what i did. btw, i wasn't "rambling". the data were clear. the theory was presented. it turned out to be wrong.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: DIY Speakers and Subs
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › DIY Speakers and Subs › Fast bass, slow bass...