Talk:Damping factor: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 00:16, 25 April 2006

Latest revision as of 03:30, 30 January 2024

(224 intermediate revisions by 20 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|

Note to self: change these to source and load - [[User:Omegatron|Omegatron]]

{{WikiProject Electronics|importance=low}}

:Done. - [[User:Omegatron|Omegatron]] 13:39, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)

}}

{{archives|age=30|bot=lowercase sigmabot III}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config

| archive = Talk:Damping factor/Archive %(counter)d

| algo = old(30d)

| counter = 2

| maxarchivesize = 150K

| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}

}}

== what would be an example of a large damping factor and a small one? ==

== Large Damping Factor is desirable for audio amplifiers ==

I have a real problem with this statement...

"A large damping factor is no advantage beyond a certain point, probably around 10." This is totally not true... and totally obvious to anyone who works in the professional audio field, as I do. A large damping factor (100 or greater, preferably 400 - 1000) is highly desirable, and mandatory for quality bass reproduction, given the way that loudspeakers work. Please read the referenced article from Crown Audio. Anyone who believes a large damping factor is no advantage is confusing the issue of feedback (and possible negative effects of feedback) with damping factor. [[User:Tvaughan1|Tvaughan1]] 22:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

----

== Moved from Talk:Light current ==

Thanks for any info. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/79.79.229.165|79.79.229.165]] ([[User talk:79.79.229.165#top|talk]]) 17:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)</small>

Light Current... please read the "Description of damping factor" article referenced at the bottom of [[damping factor]]. If you understand how a loudspeaker works, and I trust that you do, you will realize that the article is correct (due to mechanical factors... the spring effect of the diaphragm, the mass and inertia of the diaphragm...).

[[User:Tvaughan1|Tvaughan1]]

==Previous archive missing?==

:Please sign your posts anon, then I know who Im talking to!--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 00:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

This note was present at the top of this page, but the second link was a red link:

Earlier talk archived at:

:THe article you reference is very badly written and inaccurate. Let me ask you a question: How well damped would a speaker be if the amplifier output could be represented as a pefect S/C. Would it be perfect - or less than perfect. Why?--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 03:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

*[[Talk:Damping factor/archive1]]

*[[Talk:Damping factor/archive2]]

I'm changing to the archive template and archiving another chunk through 2007. — [[user:MaxEnt|MaxEnt]] 10:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Moved from my talk page--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 03:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

:That's because the links are wrong. The first has a redirect, but they should correctly read:

I'm sorry... I thought I had signed my post on your talk page. Thanks for replying. OK... if the amplifier output impedance was zero (it's in series, so it isn't a short circuit or you would have no voltage), the speaker would be well damped. It would be perfectly damped, to the extent that is possible without mounting an accelerometer on the speaker and using feedback to attempt to eliminate all unwanted speaker motion (which, as you may know, has been attempted in some woofer and subwoofer designs). [[User:Tvaughan1|Tvaughan1]] 13:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

:*[[Talk:Damping factor/Archive 1]]

----

:*[[Talk:Damping factor/Archive 2]]

:[[Special:Contributions/86.174.152.128|86.174.152.128]] ([[User talk:86.174.152.128|talk]]) 12:02, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

== Furtherarchiving disscussionis nonsense ==

Sorry, but to archive SMALL Quantities of text

I consider that as nonsense.

The article is not as good, the contribution here usually help.

It's perfectly possible for the output impedance of the amp to be zero (in theory) but still drive a current and thus develop an emf (voltage) across the load. In fact, the lower the impedance, the better it is able to do this. To the speaker, the output impedance appears across the speaker (i.e. in parallel). For the case of the speaker's back-emf, the amp's output impedance is the load. The question is whether an impedance here of 0.001 ohms or 0.0001 ohms makes any real difference, when the coil (source) impedance is 4 or 8 ohms. My view is that it doesn't, because the amount of current that the speaker can push back as a result of its back-emf is not in the order of hundreds of amps, even momentarily. No matter how good the speaker, it's not an equally efficient transducer in both directions - a mechanical movement of the cone of x doesn't induce a reverse current equal to the input current that moves the cone by x. Thus the back-emf is vastly smaller than the driving signal, and so even a poorish damping factor is probably "good enough" in practice. Good mechanical design of the speaker is probably vastly more important here. The problem is that this is one of the main areas that the audiophile magic fairy dust merchants go to town on, so unfortunately simply because one article claims factors of 10,000 "are necessary" for good listening doesn't make it so. The only way to determine the truth is double-blind listening tests, and in those, no clear cut correlation is shown between damping factor and listening quality, once a basic d/f level of about 10 is present. [[User:GRAHAMUK|Graham]] 14:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

--[[User:AK45500|AK45500]] ([[User talk:AK45500|talk]]) 16:43, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

== Critical damping of loudspeakers ==

:Graham, I tend to agree with what you have said here. THe only thing I would comment on is your statement about the non [[reciprocity]] of the loudpeaker as a transducer. What I think a lot of audiophiles would do well to remember is that [[current]] in the LS coil produces a [[force]] that acts against the surround [[stiffness]] to cause a defined displacement of the cone. This is the normal operating mode of the speaker. In the reverse direction (mechanical to electrical) it is the '''[[velocity]]''' of the cone/coil that produces an [[electromotive force]]. This emf will naturally produce a current of V/R where R is the total series resistance in the circuit (including the coil resistance) but it is aeay to see that the voltage generated at the amplifier o/p terminals is attenuated in the ratio of the damping factor (approx). But, used as a microphone, properly loaded with a highish Z, you might find that the LS works better than expected. By using the correct calcualtion for [[efficacy]], you may indeed find that the LS is just as efficatious whichever way round its used.--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 15:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe that critical damping of a loudseaker cone by electrical methods is, in almost all cases, impossible due to the non zero resistance of the voice coil. --Light current 10:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

: Just use a '''negative impedance''' at the amplifier.

You're quite right, a speaker can make a decent enough microphone when interfaced appropriately. However, when connected to a power amp output, it is definitely not interfaced correctly for its microphone mode, which is what I'm getting at. Having read the arguments here, it seems that we are all pretty much in agreement except for the matter of degree. Obviously, all else being equal, a high damping factor is a Good Thing, but what you and I seem to be arguing is that once it's "good enough" other factors begin to dominate. Tvaughan seems to be saying that for tight, controlled bass, much higher damping factors are needed. However, his own equations don't bear this out, because even with an infinite damping factor (short circuit) the mechanical resonance/inertia will dominate, so I can't see how increasing the damping factor from, say 20 to 200 will make any appreciable difference to the controlled-ness or otherwise of the cone. As long as there is a low driving impedance (df >10), and the speaker is built lightly, as they are, the amp will keep the cone under tight control. I challenge Tvaughan to identify the lower of two damping factors in a double-blind listening test where this is the ONLY difference (easily set up by inserting a very small (0.01 ohm) resistor in series with the speaker.) [[User:GRAHAMUK|Graham]] 06:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

: --[[User:AK45500|AK45500]] ([[User talk:AK45500|talk]]) 16:45, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

== Large Damping Factor is desirable for audio amplifiers ==

:I totally agree with you here Graham. If there was an amp of 0.1 ohm output impedance and a speaker of 8 ohms this would give a DF of 80. If the speaker was now changed for a 16 ohm unit (doubling the 'so called' DF), could TVaughan1 tell the difference between the two? My bet is that he nor anyone else could.

I have a real problem with this statement... "A large damping factor is no advantage beyond a certain point, probably around 10." This is totally not true... and totally obvious to anyone who works in the professional audio field, as I do. A large damping factor (100 or greater, preferably 400 - 1000) is highly desirable, and mandatory for quality bass reproduction, given the way that loudspeakers work. Please read the referenced article from Crown Audio. Anyone who believes a large damping factor is no advantage is confusing the issue of feedback (and possible negative effects of feedback) with damping factor. Tvaughan1 22:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

:Unfortunately, TVaughan1 has not yet realised that most of the damping resistance lies withing the speaker and that therfore even a zero output Z amp will give imperfect damping. Of course this is becuase he has ignored my previous posts guiding him toward this obvious conclusion. Ah well!--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 19:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

::Light Current - please don't speak for me, and what I have or have not realized. I have conducted more than a few double-blind listening tests, debunking a number of audiophile myths (green magic marker on CDs, mastering at 1X vs. 2X, clock jitter vs. pit jitter, etc.). I know how to tell the difference between real and imagined audio phenomena. I'm not going to be "guided" towards your conclusions when my ears, equipment, and experience are guiding me to different conclusions.

::Graham - I will take that challenge (although I don't happen to have a high power 0.01 ohm resistor lying around, and I certainly didn't say I could hear the difference between a damping factor of 799 and 800... but I'd bet I can hear the difference between a DF of 8 and a DF of 80, so let's use a 1 ohm resistor).

::Let me make a couple of points. First, damping factor is most important for bass drivers (woofers, subwoofers). The highest quality low frequency drivers are anything but "lightly built". The moving mass of my JBL 2245H is 0.185 Kg, about 6 ounces. Of course you may be using tiny little speakers incapable of quality sound reproduction in the lowest octave of the human hearing range... if so why are you discussing damping factor? Second, speaker impedance will vary... it isn't always 8 ohms. Speakers are often driven in parallel (4 ohm nominal) configuration, which increases the available power from a given amplifier, but halves the damping factor. As others have pointed out, the series resistance of the speaker cable degrades the damping factor. In physically large environments, you can't always locate the amplifier next to the speakers (the speakers may be hung from the ceiling, for instance), and it can be impractical to use very large gauge speaker wire. If you start with an amplifier that has a damping factor of 1000, and you run 100 feet of 12 gauge speaker cable, you have added 0.32 ohms of series resistance, and you are down to a damping factor of 24. If you are using an amplifier with a damping factor of 10, and you are using 16 gauge cable, you add 0.80 ohms of series resistance, and your damping factor has dropped to 5. If you are using 4 ohm speakers instead of 8, these factors are cut in half (to 2.5 in the latter example). Third, you need to consider the effect of electrical damping both the time ___domain and the frequency ___domain. Consider that mechanical resonance causes unwanted motion and sound, and that this distortion causes destructive interference (most prominantly at the resonant frequency of the loudspeaker). We humans can hear over a very wide dynamic range. Audible distortion isn't always masked by the program (as the program may be silent while the distortion continues!). A speaker may be asked to reproduce a very loud signal at very high SPL, and then immediately be silent (a gated kick drum at 600 watts into a single speaker). Yes, there are many factors to consider with this problem, but all things being equal, you want a power amplifier with a high damping factor (much greater than 10). Lastly, the mechanical resonance will not be so dominant if it is electrically damped. There is a big difference between the speaker resonating mechanically when it has no electrical connection (the speaker is connected to an infinitely high impedance), and a speaker that is trying to resonate when it is connected to an amplifier that is capable of forcing the signal voltage to the desired level (say, for instance, zero volts immediately after the gated kick at the start of Queen's "We Will Rock You"). It is the same phenomenon you could observe if you open the circuit on an electric motor, which will continue to spin, versus short circuiting the motor's terminals (it will stop quickly). [[User:Tvaughan1|Tvaughan1]] 20:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

== Reply to TV1 ==

Well [[User:Tvaughan1]] I have to say that even with a zero o/p impedance amplifier, the speaker is not IMO '''perfectly''' damped and never can be unless, of cours, in the electrical equivalent circuit of the mechanical/electrical system:

<math>

\zeta=\omega_0 \Rightarrow RC=4 { L \over R } \,

</math> or

<math>

R=2*sqr{L \over C }

</math>

ie L represents the cone mass, C the cone compliance and R the total equivalent electrical damping. How and if this could be arranged, Im not sure yet. But it could not be acheived by the amplifier and would have to be engineered into the speaker by the manufacturers.

BTW, the output impedance of the source can be zero and you can still have a voltage from it! In fact an amp with lots of NFB approximates a perfect voltage source.

Let me ask you another question: What actually do you have to reduce to zero in order to obtain perfect damping? Is it:

*a) the LS terminal voltage or

*b) the emf generated by the coil?

What is the reason for your answer?--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 14:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

:I have to agree with you, FWIW. The problem ultimately is that the speaker cone has mass and therefore inertia. Even if you could short circuit the coil, there is still the mechanics to consider. [[User:GRAHAMUK|Graham]] 15:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Where is the energy of a moving cone dissipated when its leads are s/c? I think some of course will be radiated into the air as sound (or absorbed in the cabinet wadding), but the remainder must be dissipated in the internal resistance of the coil. Another important factor in terms of damping is of course the nature of the acoustical loading: a speaker in a sealed box will be more highly damped than one in free air (and its resonance freq will be increased).

Also, is low damping factor necessarily a bad thing? It can increase the bass output at the expense of lack of tightness/control; but what is the min damping factor required for a good bass drum sound anyway? I suppose it depends on how tight the bass drum is!

--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 16:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

::This is all very nice, but I think you are missing my point. As an engineer, I don't disagree with the equations. As an audio professional, I have heard the difference between high quality amplifiers with high damping factors, and low quality amplifiers with low damping factors. Sure, there are many other factors to consider when evaluating an amplifier, such as distortion ratings. In any case, any audio professional who has critically evaluated amplifiers will tell you that a high damping factor is desirable... unless you don't care about accurate bass reproduction. So I ask you... have you listened and compared amplifiers with low damping factor to amplifiers with a high damping factor? The referenced Crown Audio article, in my opinion, is far more informative than this Wikipedia article in its present form.

::Light current asked "Also, is low damping factor necessarily a bad thing? It can increase the bass output at the expense of lack of tightness/control; but what is the min damping factor required for a good bass drum sound anyway?". Yes... low damping factor is a bad thing. Any increase in bass response can only be described as noise or distortion... unwanted sound that does not represent the audio signal that we desired to reproduce. If you want ''accurate'' sound reproduction, you need an amplifier with a high damping factor. [[User:Tvaughan1|Tvaughan1]] 03:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

How many perfect speaker systems ITO low freq response do you know? They all have a lower 3 dB point!--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 13:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Because you have declined to answer my original questions about what is necessary for good damping, I fear you may have missed an important part of my reasoning. If you now go back and look at them, youll see that I did not ask them in vain but to try to illustrate a point ablut the ineffectiveness of super hig DFs.--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 18:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

== DF more critical for larger, more massive loudspeakers ==

My JBL 2245H 18" subwoofers sound pretty darn good... flat response down to 30 Hz, and good response down to 20Hz. But they sound horrible if they are driven with an amplifier with a damping factor of 10. That is why I use a Crown DC-300A Series II. The manual for this amplifier describes the following...

"Your amplifier can provide an excellent damping factor of 750 or more from DC to 400 Hz in Dual mode with an 8 ohm load. In contrast, typical damping factors are 50 or lower. Higher damping factors yield lower distortion and greater motion control over the loudspeakers. A common damping factor for commercial applications is between 50 and 100. Higher damping factors may be desirable for live sound, but long cable lengths often limit the highest damping factor that can be achieved practically. (Under these circumstances, Crown’s IQ System® is often used with Crown’s premium Macro-Tech,® Com-Tech® and Reference series amplifiers for easy monitoring and control of units located very near the loudspeakers.) In recording studios and home hi-fi, a damping factor of 500 or more is desirable."

My ears tell me that the Crown Engineers are right, and that the statement "A large damping factor(greater than about 10) is no advantage" is totally incorrect. I believe the Crown Audio engineers have done their homework, and are an authoritative reference on the subject. I have worked in professional audio for 19 years. I have designed, constructed and operated quality assurance studios for record companies and CD manufacturers. Professional engineers in the recording studio industry and in the sound reinforcement business understand the difference that a high damping factor makes. It's easy to understand if you use your ears. It's also easy to understand from a mathmatical and a practical standpoint. The lower the damping factor, the more you will have unwanted motion on your low frequency (high mass) drivers. Unwanted motion of the cone means unwanted sound. Unwanted sound is distortion... it does not represent the originally recorded signal, it is noise. Arguing that "a large damping factor (greater than 10) is no advantage" is a disservice to those who would reference the article, looking for good advice when choosing an amplifier or building a sound system.

[[User:Tvaughan1|Tvaughan1]] 15:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

:You seem to be missing my point!. Whilst your system may be able to reproduce anything down to sub sonic, most system cant. In these cases, low damping can enhance an inadequate bass response. THats all I'm saying. I cant see your argument against! BTW Youre ears, as are most people's, are unreliable! THats why we use test gear.--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 18:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I get the point, you want "one note" bass. Any bass frequencies all turn into the resonant frequency of the speaker. It's intermodulation distortion. Look, my ears have spent years being the reference standard for quality at a major record label. I'm a musician, and I can hear more than most people can due to years of critical listening. It's a blessing and a curse (as it is with video, by the way, as I see MPEG compression artifacts like the kid in the 6th sense sees dead people). The point is, if ANYONE can hear a difference between system A and system B (in a valid, double-blind listening test), then there is a difference, and there must be an explanation. Audio is an art and a science. If the artist tells you there is a difference, the scientist better figure out how to explain it, measure it, and deal with it. As I've pointed out, I've dealt with many situations where recording engineers and audiophiles would tell me there was a problem, and I would conduct tests to debunk the myth... always successfully. It just seems as if you have never heard a bad sound system with low damping factor. Why else would you argue that zero damping factor would be not only OK, but preferred? Find a really cheap DJ with a really cheap sound system, and ask him to crank up the dance music. Or listen to any teenager's car stereo system with 1000 watt bass drivers. You'll hear what low damping factor is. Muddy bass. [[User:Tvaughan1|Tvaughan1]] 22:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

:No I dont want "one note" bass. Im suggesting that in a system with restricted bass response, like a small bass cab, or cheapo woofer, lowering the damping factor can give more o/p at the expense of flabbyness. But lots of people like a flabby bass. THis is well known in the bass amp business! Im surprised youve not heard of it! And wher on earth do you get the notion that it causes IM dist?--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 04:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

:BTW you dont tell us how your 18" JBLs are mounted. Are they in a sealed cab, reflex or TL structure.And why do you need TWO? I think this may have some bearing on DF--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 04:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

"Flabbyness"? You concede that a lower damping factor is audible. [[User:Tvaughan1|Tvaughan1]] 21:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

:When its very low of course. Were not talking about low DFs tho@!--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 21:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

== Personal Experience / Expertise ==

Ahh, '''now''' you tell us that you have [[Golden Ears]]! We used to have someone over here who said he had golden ears. He was blind and his name was Angus something (I think it was McKenzie). He could hear a pin dropping on the moons surface-- but no one else could. It's true that you can train your brain to hear things that others can't. Maybe you can hear differences in DF - that doesnt mean that everyone can. And it means therefore that its generally not important to most people if they can't hear it. I think that's what the article says. If it doesnt - it soon will.--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 01:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

:Don't misquote me. I told you I have good hearing, and I told you that I have some training in music and critical listening. I told you a little bit about my professional background and job responsibilities. I think you've hit the nail on the head, however, when you say that maybe I can hear differences in DF that not everyone can... that is almost certainly true. That doesn't mean that a high damping factor isn't important. Look, the majority of consumers don't know how audio systems work, and they don't know how to measure their performance (objectively or subjectively). They don't know how to interpret the manufacturer's specifications. That doesn't mean that they wouldn't benefit from one system versus another. All things being equal, they would benefit from a system with more accurate sound reproduction. Some of these consumers may be coming to Wikipedia to look up damping factor. Let's give them the facts. [[User:Tvaughan1|Tvaughan1]] 03:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

:It should be fairly obvious why this setup won't work... you propose changing the volume level along with the damping factor. [[User:Tvaughan1|Tvaughan1]] 20:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

:Going from 0 to 10 ohms changes the impedance from 8 to 18 ohms. That's more than a fraction of a dB. The point is, if the volume changes, it kills the validity of a double-blind listening test, as the subject could easily hear the volume difference and reliably identify setup A from setup B when presented with 10 random samples. You wouldn't know if the subject was hearing the difference in damping factor or the difference in volume. [[User:Tvaughan1|Tvaughan1]] 22:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

== Zero electrical damping factor ==

There is also a good case to be made for a system with '''zero''' electrical damping. In the case of a speaker in a small sealed box, there is no way to reduce the system resonance below a few hundred Hz (even if the speaker itself has a very low free air resonance) because of the low compliance of the air in the box. However, because of the high system resonance, other losses being equal, the cone damping will be high. All that is needed is then to electrically drive the speaker from an amplifier with a high o/p Z (ie a current source) for a flat response all the way down to dc.

One advantage of the system is that whether it is being operated above or below the system resonance, the cone excursion is current controlled and is therefore linear (independent of surround nonlinearities). The only slight problem with this scheme is that the efficiency may not be too high. But hey, watts are cheap these days - yes?--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 19:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The above post was included as a general comment and not as a specific response or goad to any User currently involved in this disscussion--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 22:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

----

:If you like noise, sure... go with a low damping factor. Let's say you are setting up a sound system to amplify the performance of a band. You set up a microphone to the bass drum (the kick drum), and this is wired to an amplifier, which is connected to a low frequency driver (a woofer). The band may prefer a noise gate on the kick drum, to create a sharp attack and decay. Since the woofer cone has a relatively large mass, it will continue to resonate, even after the audio system has gated the sound to zero. Another way to look at this is as the impulse response of the system (although obviously the system only has a frequency response of 20 - 20,000 Hz, or 20 - about 250 Hz for the low side of a bi-amplified sound system). The objective is to accurately amplify the sound that was captured (and gated). While we can not eliminate unwanted resonance of the speaker cone entirely (without using feedback on the motion of the cone), we can minimize it by using an amplifier with a high damping factor. Again... use your ears. If you haven't heard the difference, this conversation is a waste of time... you will never be convinced of the value of a high damping factor. [[User:Tvaughan1|Tvaughan1]] 15:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

You say:

<blockquote>

''While we can not eliminate unwanted resonance of the speaker cone entirely (without using feedback on the motion of the cone), we can minimize it by using an amplifier with a high damping factor.''

</blockquote>

I partly agree. But it seems like you have not read my post properly. I said it can also be minimised by using a sealed box and a current source drive. I think its easy to be fooled by ones ears! Also you appear to be limiting the discussion to one of amplification of live music. There are other applications of amplifiers/loudspeakers. BTW the cone resonace in free air does not only depend upn its mass but on the compliance of the surround. But prhaps you forgot to mention that.

--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 17:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

:I used live sound amplification as an example. Certainly the same is true for the playback of recorded music. [[User:Tvaughan1|Tvaughan1]] 22:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

When you can report results of '''double blind listening tests''' that show that extreme damping factors are preferred by the subjects to modest or low damping factors, I will believe you.--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 18:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

:I see... the burden of proof is on me, even though I've cited experts who explain that a high damping factor is valuable. I think that those who say "a damping factor greater than 10 is of no value" have a burden of proof. [[User:Tvaughan1|Tvaughan1]] 22:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes Im afraid the burden of proof does lie with the minority or those who state things that are contrary to common sense or the accepted mathematical analysis of things! This is the way WP works. It generally weedles out the untruths! But it should not be a problem for you as you are so certain about your belief.--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 23:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

:I believe the engineers at Crown Audio. Have you read the article (before changing this wording of the external link)? Do you to claim to have greater expertise than the engineers at Crown Audio? You haven't offered any reason for anyone to believe that you have more knowledge or experience on the subject than the #1 professional audio amplifier manufacturer in the world (who have been studying the issue for decades). You offer no references or citations for your claims, and you make some patently absurd claims. I'm just trying to help out the folks who wouldn't know any better, who come to Wikipedia for some good information. You simply dismiss the experts (the Marantz article is poorly written... the Crown article is sales literature... in other words, they are knowingly, unethically making false claims). Instead of substantiating your own claims, you throw out one red herring (zero damping factor is good!) after the next (perfect electrical damping isn't perfect damping... free air resonance depends on the spring rate of the surround... yeah, no kidding!). So, [[damping factor]] remains hijacked with a minority viewpoint (outside the professional audio majority). It's Light Current and friends against Crown Audio, Marantz, and many others. I'll stick with Crown, thanks. It's clear that you have never heard the effect of low damping factor on a system. This is most likely due to limited experience with sound reinforcement systems. Do you own any professional amplifiers or loudspeakers? I do... many. Have you ever done live sound? What is important in a professional sound system may not be as important in a small home stereo system. Have you done any controlled listening tests? I'm guessing "no". I have... many, to AES standards. Audibility (which, by the way, is what we are discussing) can not be shown mathematically. It is a psychoacoustic phenomenon. Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the Audio Engineering Society? I'd recommend it to you.

Well if I may, Id like to interject here and reply to your initial point.

*I believe the engineers at [[Crown Audio]] are a fine bunch of fellows who have designed damn good amps not only useful for audio but also for driving other voice coil systems etc. I even remember using one for something!.

However, the text(which I have read) in link you refer to will, (although having originally been written by engineers) have been spiced up considerably by the sales/marketing people. After all, if your company makes an amp that has a DF of 2000, why not trumpet it and pretend it's important. I would, whether true or not (its not):So whilst the Crown art is accurate, it does rather tend to overblow the importance of high DF from an audio perspective.

*THe Marantz article if I can remember it properly, has some glaring errors in the first few paras that led me to reject the integrity of the article as a whole. I will rellook at it if you want me to list them. Obviously written by someone who knows nothing about the subject, or been grossly mangled in the translation by the sales dept.

You say:

''they are knowingly, unethically making false claims''

Of course, it happens all the time. You probably cant sue them over it but they sail very close to the wind in an effort to persuade the innocent. Looks like they succeeded with you!

My zero electrical damping factor stuff has been referenced- draw your own conclusions. It exists. Whats the problem? Also if you had any appreciation of electronic or systems engineering, you would realise that a speaker cannot be damped perfectly just by having a zero o/p impedance because it has its own internal resistance that cannot be ignored. I tried to tell you this before. Are you denying that the free air resonance of a LS relies not only on the cone mass but on the compliance (the restoring force) of the surround? Why do you say that these staements are 'red herrings'?

If you are a typical AES memeber, I think I may be too radical to be been a member of the Audio Engineering Society.

More later.--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 01:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

:The issue is whether an amplifier's damping factor effects the '''sound quality''' in an audio system, and if so, at what point does the damping factor become large enough so that further increases have no '''audible''' effect on the sound quality. The issue is not whether an amplifier can "perfectly damp" a speaker. You claim the Wikipedia reading world should believe your opinion and analysis on the importance of damping factor, instead of Crown Audio and Marantz. Quite a bold claim, in my opinion. Cite your sources for the audibility of damping factor. Again, keep in mind that the amplifier's DF is the starting point, and if you use low impedance speakers and long and/or thin speaker wire, it goes down from there. Advising readers of this article who might be selecting an amplifier that a DF greater than 10 is insignificant shows a lack of experience on the topic, in my opinion. Mathematical analysis of the phenomenon is instructive, but not helpful to answer the real question. Audibility is subjective. Sound quality is subjective. The ONLY way to answer the question is to do double-blind listening tests to AES standards. [[User:Tvaughan1|Tvaughan1]] 03:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

:Statements such as ''"Note that modern amplifiers, employing relatively high levels of negative feedback, generally exhibit extremely low output impedances — one of the many consequences of using feedback. Thus "damping factor" figures in themselves do not say very much about the quality of a system. Given the controversy that has surrounded the topic of feedback for many years, some may see a high damping factor as a mark of poor quality becuase it implies a high level of NFB in the amplifier."'' do not belong in the article. These statements confuse the issue, as much of the discussion on this page has done. Feedback may or may not be a good thing, but that is a different topic for a different wikipedia article. No one has claimed that damping factor figures say everything about the quality of a system... that is absurd. Damping factor is but one measurement of an amplifier's capabilities.

:The following statements ''"A large damping factor(greater than about 10) is no advantage. Thus provided that the return path of the cables measures less than about 0.8 Ω , thicker or better cables will make no perceptible difference. The difference in damping with a factor of 10 is the difference between 8 Ω and 8.8 Ω, which is unlikely to give more than a fraction of a dB difference in sound pressure level at the low frequency resonance of the speaker."'' are incorrect. No proof whatsoever is offered, and no citations are given for the statements, particularly with regard to perceptibility. I pointed out some very good articles that contradict these statements. I asked those who made the statements to prove it, and you replied with questions, math and red herrings. [[User:Tvaughan1|Tvaughan1]] 00:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

::I hesitate to add more fuel to the fire, but the arguments seem to be getting a bit heated on both sides here. Is there something we can agree on to the betterment of the article to come from any of this? I have a few comments/observations. Crown Audio are claiming that their amps give DFs of 2000 or so. I don't dispute that, but how did they achieve this? It must be due to having a large degree of parallelism in the output driver stages, coupled with a fair amount of NFB within the amp. This approach, particularly the parallel output drivers with load sharing, is definitely the way to go for a good sounding amplifier, according to numerous references I've read. So could it be that IF the Crown equipment sounds good, it is due to its overall design rather than this one particular measure of performance? That's why I suggest the double-blind test so that the amp can remain the same one, the speaker can remain the same one, and the only thing that varies is the series resistance inserted. If we are arguing about the difference between a DF of 20 and 2000, then inserting 0.4 ohms (for an 8 ohm speaker) will suffice. This will change the amplitude by 0.21 dB SPL which should be inaudible (and well within any variation caused by very small changes in the head position of the listener). If there is an appreciable difference to the resonance/tightness of the bass as a result, this should be detectable where the amplitude difference is not. However, this is something of an academic point, since it's not reasonable that we can get together to set this up and carry it out in practice, so whoever the "onus of proof" is on, there is no way to independently verify the results and come to any conclusion, or even know that the test was ever done. However, I must disagree with Light Current that objective measurements are the only way to determine the quality of a system, because there are many things that straightforward measurements cannot tell us about whether a system sounds good or not. Measuring DF alone is not going to tell us much; however, before I get accused of shifting my stance, my own view is that it's hard to see why it WOULD make any difference, because the physics of the system seems to dictate otherwise. The mechanics of the speaker are sure to dominate, and even with perfect damping there will be mechanical resonance and inertia. TVaughan correctly points out that a motor left to run open circuit and one short circuited will behave very differently, the short circuited one coming to rest almost instantaneously. However, this is the difference between infinite and no damping at all, which I'm sure is totally audible (in the case of a speaker). However a motor subjected to a braking load of 0.4 ohms will stop as if short circuited (assuming its windings are in the tens of ohms range), with no discernible difference to its mechanical behaviour compared with a s/c. So applying this analogy to a speaker seems to suggest that this wouldn't make any audible difference there either. As far as I can see the argument is at stalemate, because the only way forward is to perform real-world tests that all of us take part in and agree on a result. That isn't going to happen, so where can we go from here? Perhaps instead we should focus on what we can agree on (which appears to be a lot in fact) and see where the article can be improved specifically. [[User:GRAHAMUK|Graham]] 01:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I didnt say that test gear measurements are the only way. I said [[ear]]s are unreliable so we shouldnt rely on them. They may give indications but [[Test gear]] is the easier way because you are not hampered by the vagaries of peoples mood, health, [[intoxication]], prevois exposure to loud sounds, [[physiology]], [[psychoacoustic]] differences etc.etc etc.--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 02:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

:Double-blind listening tests are the only reliable way to determine if something such as the effect of damping factor on audio is audible or not. Test equipment can measure signal properties, but not audibility. BTW, I didn't promise to do anything. I don't feel that the burden of proof to establish that a damping factor greater than 10 is insignificant is on me. I didn't make the statement in the article, I questioned it. Still, I'd love to know the facts... where does DF become large enough to be inaudible? Of course, this is highly dependent on the speakers used (again... large, professional woofers are probably more reliant on a high DF to avoid unwanted resonance / distortion). A test wouldn't be too hard to design, but to be valid you would want to null the effect of volume. I'm sure you would see a big difference between trained subjects and untrained. [[User:Tvaughan1|Tvaughan1]] 02:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

== Definition/lede ==

This is not now accurate becuse to have damping factor, there must be something to damp [http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/audioprinciples/amplifiers/dampingfactor.php]- like an [[oscillator]]y system. No such system is described in the lede para! Therefore Im proposing a merge with the [[damping]] article--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 22:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

== Interesting table from one of the links ==

For Damping factors between 50 and 2000 there is less than 1ms diff in decay time. There is 1 ms diff between DF of 20 and DF of 50.

Can TV1 hear 1ms difference?

[http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/audioprinciples/amplifiers/dampingfactor.php]--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 22:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

:Please sign your posts. This is an interesting reference... I added it to [[damping factor]]. Did you read the rest of the article? The tables in this article were made using certain assumptions (speaker with a Q of 3, etc.). In any case, the audibility higher damping factors is certainly an open question. I don't claim to have the ability to hear the difference between a DF of 50 and 2000, nor even 20 and 50. I'm reasonably sure I could hear the difference between 10 and 100... but I'd have to conduct a valid experiment, and such and experiment would take some careful set-up (especially if you are using a series resistor, which changes the volume, and if compensated by increasing the amplifier's gain it increases the noise... although in most cases by a trivial amount). [[User:Tvaughan1|Tvaughan1]] 22:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

== Merge ==

* '''No''' — [[User:Omegatron|Omegatron]] 01:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

* '''No''' — [[User:Tvaughan1|Tvaughan1]] 03:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Dont be shy - say what you really mean! Theyre the '''same''' thing!!! Have a (long) think about it! Ive only just realised it myself--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 13:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

== Archiving ==

This page is overdue for archiving. As replies and posats have been interleaved somewhat, does anyone want me to put the posts now into logical order unser separate hdgs ([[refactor]]ing) .''' Or''' do you want to leave them in this (rather unsatisfactory) order before archiving? See [[WP:REFACTOR]]--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 03:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

: It is not. Leave it until a few weeks after discussion has died down. — [[User:Omegatron|Omegatron]] 13:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

What about the page size limit?--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 14:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

:What about it? It's archaic, and only a recommendation. Any decent browser that is less than five years old can handle much more than 32K text. [[User:GRAHAMUK|Graham]] 14:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes Ive heard that, and Ive also heard the other argument that pages should not exceed 32k for readability etc. THe policy is uncertain. However, I do beieve that a page longer than 32k can be difficult to navigate and follow esp with multiple respondents.--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 15:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

== Refactoring ==

I believe that the talk pages should be refactored and new hdgs created to cover the material, then the relavant material moved under those hdgs as we go along. THe trouble is that some people object their posts being moved let alone edited.--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 15:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

== Arguing ==

I don't have much experience with loudspeakers so I haven't "participated" so far. Some comments on what's been said here so far:

* I think everyone here agrees that higher damping factor is better, right? No one's arguing the "negative feedback is bad" side of things?

* What you are arguing about is the point at which a higher damping factor makes no useful difference, right? This is because:

** The mechanical and electrical properties of the speaker mean it can't be perfectly damped. The voice coil has some resistance, the cone would still vibrate a little even if you could stop the voice coil perfectly, etc.

** Improvements beyond a certain point are inaudible to humans.

* Doing listening tests and arguing about personal experience is completely inappropriate. Wikipedia has a policy of [[Wikipedia:No original research|No original research]], which means the article should be based on [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|verifiable]] third-party measurements and theories; not your own. I'm sure there are people on both sides of the fence that you can quote, without interjecting your own opinions or research into the article.

* From reading these comments, from my perspective, Tvaughan1 seems to be making a better case (in the specific field of bass reproduction with heavy drivers, at least) than Light Current. And much more civilly at that; LC seems to often forget that [[WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought|Wikipedia is not a discussion forum]] (or [[Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground|battleground]]). — [[User:Omegatron|Omegatron]] 13:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

:OmegatronI would like to respond to your summary as follows:

:*I dont agree that higher damping factor is 'better' in all circumstances' as some my posts show. Also I make a clear distinction between 'damping' of a speaker and 'electrical damping'of a speaker

:*You are correct about the limit of detection of damping factor and the reasons Graham and I quote for it.

:*I dont believe '''I''' have been arguing about my personal exeprience.

:But now....

:Ahh Here we come to the thorny question of [[verifiability]]. There are references quoted which on inspection contain completely or partially wrong information IMO and can be shown to be wrong mathematically. Are these allowable or should they be disallowed if they can be proved wrong? TV! is basing his argument on a couple of refs from reputable manfs, but which clearly to me contain errors or stetching of the truth. In addition TV1 is refusing to accept any mathemeatical proof of my case that I offer and refers to his own personal experience.

:AS to the question of civility, I believe I am acting in a perfectly civil manner, I am merely trying to present a robust argument to someone who thinks he has all the answers based on his personal experience and a few dodgy refs.. In this way, as I have found out many times before, the truth will eventually emerge. And before you ask, No I dont think in this particular case, that a milder approach would work. I have many discussions with others on WP, and my robustness is in direct proportion to their strength (or obstinacy) of argument. Any way 'O' you should know my style by now.

:Finally, since you admit that you dont know much about loudspeakers, I think we can disregard your last comment about who is making the better case!--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 15:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

''I dont agree that higher damping factor is 'better' in all circumstances' as some my posts show.''

: I don't see that in your comments. Can you summarize the instances in which it is harmful?

''There are references quoted which on inspection contain completely or partially wrong information IMO and can be shown to be wrong mathematically. Are these allowable or should they be disallowed if they can be proved wrong?''

: Can they be proved wrong by citing ''other'' references?

''Any way 'O' you should know my style by now.''

: I do indeed. I've seen you use the phrase "robust argument" many times as an excuse for mild incivility and personal attacks. Wikipedia is not a place to hold arguments at all. If you're just itching to get in fights, go find an audiophile discussion forum.

''Finally, since you admit that you dont know much about loudspeakers, I think we can disregard your last comment about who is making the better case!''

: Actually, my lack of pre-existing bias would make me a better judge of your arguments, don't you think? Are you sure you're not just disregarding me because I disagree with you?

: And maybe I'm mistaken, but I thought you just said you weren't making arguments about personal experience. — [[User:Omegatron|Omegatron]] 15:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

:At your request/comment I have removed my exhortations to TV1 to do testing. I hope this is satisfactory.--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 15:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

:I have also removed what some may consider to be inflammatory statements.--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 21:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

:: That's more than satisfactory. You probably could leave some of it. I really appreciate that you were willing to do that, though. — [[User:Omegatron|Omegatron]] 16:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

:Thank you Omegatron!--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 21:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

:If WP is not allowing frank discussion of the page topics, then the talk pages may as well be closed down. However, I think that would be a retrograde step for many reasons. There may be a lot of hot air vented on these pages, but eventually, we do get some condensed nuggets of truth out of it. If we didnt discuss/argue as much, I think WP would be a lot poorer for it!--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 15:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

:: Yes, we do need to discuss things, but we can get to the nuggets just fine without the hot air.

:: I guess I don't really mean "argument". "Argument" can be used in several different ways, like "they got in an argument" (fight) or "he made a good argument" (part of a discussion). I'm really trying to keep this a comfortable discussion and prevent it from becoming a fight. In a fight, everyone says the same things over and over, goes on the defensive, and disregards what everyone else says. It leads nowhere. In a discussion, everyone has an open mind, tries to prove themselves wrong, only needs to state a particular argument once because everyone else genuinely considers it, etc. You seem to enjoy minor conflict more than discussions, and it's not good for our community atmosphere. That's what the [[Wikipedia:Civility|civility policies]] are meant for; "incivility is roughly defined as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress". — [[User:Omegatron|Omegatron]] 16:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

:Thank you Omegatron for your cool, calming influence. It would be nice to think that 'we can get to the nuggets just fine without the hot air' tho Im not sure that can be acu=hieved in every case-- it depends on the contestants. I do enjoy the discussions and I wasnt really getting angry with anyone and was not wanting to fight exactly but just defend my corner. I was just a bit indignant and over enthusiatsic thats all. Yes I must learn to me more pateint with people. Its a fault I know I have- I just find it difficult to control thats all. I do find it difficult to remain as cool as you do when its a subject close to my heart! And, as I say, I may wind people up without knowing it!

:I would like to state that I bear no personal malice toward TV1 or anyone on WP. What I seek to challenge is peoples views and ideas where they conflict with mine. Thats natural, I think youll agree. Any way I do think that the engineering /science pages are a lot better behaved than some of the more controversial subjects where far worse arguments even wars have broken out.

:Its amazing what tone you can pick up just from the phrasing people use tho' isnt it? Sometimes of course, it isnt meant in that way. But that's the limitation of text communication.

:At least now we know that peoples own experiences are '''not''' valid on WP and we must find references to backup the statements we make. The only problem is when one side produces x number of references and the other an equal number saying the opposite thing. Then its a battle of numbers but I would hope some common sense might enter into it. As you know , you can prove black is white by using internet references!--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 21:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

== Feedback from Crown Audio ==

I wrote to Crown Audio, to ask their opinion. Dave Engstrom, an Applications Support Engineer, was kind enough to reply. He gave me permission to quote him on his response to one of the statements in question ...

:''A large damping factor(greater than about 10) is no advantage to most listeners.''

:Theoretically true. However, if you test two amplifiers, one with high damping characteristic and one with low damping characteristic, a difference will still be perceptible. Output impedance is an electrical short circuit (so to speak). In actuality the NFb system of the channel involved generates an identical signal to the back EMF but inverted in polarity. They electrically cancel each other, very similar to CMR. The NFb circuitry has to track the speakers back EMF precisely or anomalies can appear. Thus the reason low NFb amplifiers cannot completely control the servo interfacing of the amplifier/speaker operation and interaction. In fact Crown amplifiers have always incorporated multiple NFb loops: one major and several minor nested loops.

:One other point to ponder: the "Damping Characteristic" of an amplifier does not change with the speaker wire resistance or load impedance variation. Whether 8 ohms or 4 ohms the Output impedance and level of NFb remain the same. High negative feedback provides for more than just damping factor: flat frequency response, low noise, low distortion.

:If I can be of any further assistance feel free to contact me.

:David Engstrom

:Crown Technical Support Department

I have heard from another expert, who told me he got a good laugh at the ''large damping factor is no advantage'' statement and the zero damping factor idea... but he has given up in frustration on trying to help out on Wikipedia. I know what he means.

[[User:Tvaughan1|Tvaughan1]] 19:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

:Well TV1, full marks for initiative! I wonder if we could use this (Crown) quote in the actual article? The other so called expert, however, (supplying no info other than a good laugh) Im not inclined to take as meaning anything at all unless he comes up with some hard facts or opinion.

:When David says:

:<blockquote>

:''However, if you '''test''' two amplifiers, one with high damping characteristic and one with low damping characteristic, a difference will still be perceptible''

</blockquote>

:We dont know what he means by the word ''test'' and ''perceptible'' do we? Is it an audible test? Neither does David say what he means by ''high'' and ''low'' damping factor. I think the detail of multilple fb loops is neither here nor there as far as DF is concerned. Also he doesnt say at what point low DF becomes audible.

:Finally

:When people give up in 'so called 'frustration', it either means:

*they are wrong but cant convince others of their view

*they are right but do not have the patience or words to explain thier position

*they are not really interested in writing a good encyclopedia.

::Which category would you say you fit into?

--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 21:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

''Can't convince others of their view''... well... some people are more open to new viewpoints than others.

Actually the feedback I received was more like "Wikipedia is too democratic"... to the extent that "2 idiots can outvote an expert, or 1 idiot can outlast an expert". I'm not calling you an idiot, you are obviously intelligent... but I think his point is valid (to me, at least). Wikipedia is very democratic, but for the process to work effectively contributors must recognize what they know and be willing to concede what they don't know for sure. Non-experts should be willing to defer to experts, and they should be willing to recognize expertise (personally, or in referenced articles). Contributors need to be open minded. They need to be cooperative. They need to refrain from personalizing the discussion. They need to respond to facts with more facts or theories with more theories. They need to stick to the topic.

You are as confident in your expertise as I am, so if it is just the 2 of us discussing the topic we get a stalemate. So we need 3rd party articles and opinions. Of course, if you just dismiss every reference, I have run into a brick wall. I'm only willing to run into a brick wall for so long. I'm motivated to help others... to help write a good article. I think my patience (and thick skin) is above average. No one has infinite patience.

Note that an amplifier with a high damping factor has more than just a low output impedance. It is designed with feedback circuits that force the signal voltage to the desired level... actively servo controlling the driver. So, this is active damping, not just passive damping. Dave Engstrom called it "damping characteristic". Dave has given permission to be quoted on the discussion page... I'll ask him if we can quote him in the article.

"Perceptible" shouldn't be a word that we are debating. It simply means that under a well designed test one or more people could reliably differentiate this audible effect. It means "can be perceived"... by anyone (not necessarily everyone). It doesn't mean that something is good or bad. It just means that it can be perceived. [[User:Tvaughan1|Tvaughan1]] 23:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

:Im sure youre not admitting youre wrong are you? Read my post again--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 23:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

:Also WP is not a democracy and 2 idiots cant 'outvote' an expert. What is sought is a [[consensus]] opinion.--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 00:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

== Change of heading ==

I notice you changed my heading to '''DF more critical for larger, more massive loudspeakers'''

Whilst changing other peoples postings is normally [[deprecate]]d, in this case I feel you may have highlighted something of importance. It may be worth persuing the idea that high DFs are more audible with very large (high mass) cones.

In fact I was thinking about this last night when considering your statement that you can tell the diff between a DF of 10 and 80 (say). But your system has very large sub woofers that are prone to cone breakup and I wondered whether that has anything to do with it. Also, you never said how you achieved the lower damping factor. Was it using a valve amp by any chance, compared to your normal transistor amp?--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 23:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

:I changed it to make it more meaningful, and less ridiculous. I can hear the lack of good damping when I use a cheaper amplifier with my speakers. The amplifier in question seems to match my Crown DC-300A II fairly closely on most specifications, except for damping factor. It's easy to hear the difference between tight bass and flabby bass. [[User:Tvaughan1|Tvaughan1]] 23:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

When you say cheaper amplifier, are you still using transistor amps?--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 00:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

: Sorry I consider this as ... . I do not think, that anyone in the professional audio field is not able to calculate the Brake-current.

Yes. [[User:Tvaughan1|Tvaughan1]] 00:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

: From damping factor 10 to 400 the current, that will slow down the cone, after the signal ceases will increase by 0.15 dB . It will decrease again if the coil increases by 100 Kelvin.

:But you are shure the whole audio comunity considers a 0.15 dB 'faster' acceleration or damping is important. You know, the damping 10 will increase BASS response a little tiny bit compared to 400 ! A lot of peaople consider that as desirable.

:Yes , high damping may (sometimes) be HIGHLY desirable. But then please use a Damping factor of -5 or -3 ( ¡ minus ! ). Look at Yamaha or old REVOX subwoofers. --[[User:AK45500|AK45500]] ([[User talk:AK45500|talk]]) 17:09, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

:: The results indicated that any damping factor over 10 is going to result in inaudible differences between that and a damping factor equal to infinity. However, it was also determined that the frequency-dependent variation in the response of the loudspeaker due to the output resistance of the amplifier is much more significant than the effects on system damping.

:: These two sentences contradict each other. Output resistance partially defines damping factor so you can't say "damping factor over 10 doesn't matter but <different way of saying damping factor> is much more significant"

:: Not sure if the bit in the paper is poorly written or assumes a great deal of context about what they're referring to, but the quote in the wikipedia article loses all that context. [[User:Xaxxon|XaXXon]] ([[User talk:Xaxxon|talk]]) 05:49, 27 January 2023 (UTC)