Category: loudspeakers

Acoustic measurements: Part 3

In Part 2, I showed the raw magnitude response results of three pairs of headphones measured on three different systems, each done 5 times. However, when you plot magnitude responses on a scale with 80 dB like I did there, it’s difficult to see what’s going on.

Differences in measurements relative to average

One way to get around this issue is to ignore the raw measurement and look at the differences between them, which is what we’ll do here. This allows us to “zoom in” on the variations in the measurements, at the cost of knowing what the general overall responses are.

Figure 1 in Part 2 showed the 5 x 3 sets of raw magnitude responses of the open headphones. I then take each set of 5 measurements (remember that these 5 measurements were done by removing the headphones and re-setting them each time on the measurement rig) and find their average response. Then I plot the difference between each of the 5 measurements and that average, and this is done for each of the three measurement systems, as shown below in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Open headphones: The difference between each of the 5 measurements done on each system and the mean (average) of those 5 measurements.
Figure 2: Semi-open headphones: The difference between each of the 5 measurements done on each system and the mean (average) of those 5 measurements.
Figure 3: Closed headphones: The difference between each of the 5 measurements done on each system and the mean (average) of those 5 measurements.

Some of the things that were intuitively visible in the plots in Part 2 are now obvious:

  • There is a huge change in the measured magnitude response in the high frequency bands, even when the pair of headphones and the measurement rig are the same. This is the result of small changes in the physical position of the headphones on the rig, as well as changes in the clamping force (modified by moving the headband extension). I intentionally made both of these “errors” to show the problem. Notice that the differences here are greater than ±10 dB, which is a LOT.
  • Overall, the differences between the measurements on the dummy head are bigger and have a lower frequency range than for the other two systems. This is mostly due to two things:
    • because the dummy head has pinnae (ears), very small changes in position result in big changes in response
    • it is easier to have small leaks around the ear cushions on a dummy head than with a flat surrounding of a metal plate or an artificial ear. This is the reason for the low-frequency differences with the closed headphones. Leaks have no effect on open headphone designs, since they are always leaking out through the diaphragm itself.

The differences that you can see here are the reason that, when we’re measuring headphones, we never measure just once. We always do a minimum of 5 measurements and look at the average of the set. This is standard practice, both for headphone developers and experienced reviewers like this one, for example.

In addition to this averaging, it’s also smart to do some kind of smoothing (which I have not done here…) to avoid being distracted by sharp changes in the response. Sharp peaks and dips can be a problem, particularly when you look at the phase response, the group delay, or looking for ringing in the time domain. However, it’s important to remember that the peaks and dips that you see in the measurements above might not actually be there when you put the headphones on your head. For example, if the variations are caused by standing waves inside the headphones due to the fact that the measurement system itself is made of reflective plastic or metal (but remember that you aren’t…) then the measurement is correct, but it doesn’t reflect (ha ha…) reality…

One additional thing to remember with these plots is that something that looks like a peak in the curve MIGHT be a peak, but it might also be a dip in the average curve because we’re only looking at the differences in the responses.

System differences

Instead of looking at the differences between each individual measurement and the average of the measurement set, we can also look at the differences between what each measurement system is telling us for each headphone type. For example, if I take one measurement of a pair of headphones on each system, and pretend that one of them is “correct”, then I can find the difference between the measurements from the other two systems and that “reference”.

Figure 4. One measurement for each pair of headphones on each measurement system. The red curves are the dummy head and the blue curves are the artificial ear RELATIVE TO THE FLAT PLATE.

In Figure 4, I’m pretending that the flat plate is the “correct” system, and then I’m plotting the difference between the dummy head measurement (in red) and the artificial ear measurement (in blue) relative to it.

Again, it’s important to remember with these plots is that something that looks like a peak in the curve might actually be a dip in the “reference” curve. (The bump in the red lines around 2 – 3 kHz is an example of this…)

Of course, you could say “but you just said that we shouldn’t look at a single measurement”… which is correct. If we use the averages of all 5 measurements for each set and do the same plot, the result is Figure 5.

Figure 5. The average of all 5 measurements for each pair of headphones on each measurement system. The red curves are the dummy head and the blue curves are the artificial ear relative to the flat plate.

You can see there that, by using the averaged responses instead of individual measurements, the really sharp peaks and dips disappear, since they smooth each other out.

Comparing headphone types

Things get even more complicated if you try to compare the headphones to each other using the measurement systems. Figure 6, below, shows the averages of the five measurements of each pair of headphones on each measurement system, plotted together on the same graphs (normalised to the levels at 1 kHz), one for each measurement system.

Figure 6: Comparing the three pairs of headphones on each measurement system.

This is actually a really important figure, since it shows that the same headphones measured the same way on different systems tell you very different things. For example, if you use the “simplified ear” or the “flat plate” system, you’ll believe that the closed headphones (the yellow line) is about 10 – 15 dB higher than the open headphones (the blue line) in the low frequency region. However, if you use the “dummy head” system, you’ll believe that the closed headphones (the yellow line) is about 5 – 10 dB lower than the open headphones (the blue line) in the low frequency region.

Which one is correct? They all are, even though they tell you different things. After all, it’s just data… The reason this happens is that one measurement system cannot be used to directly compare two different types of headphones because their acoustic impedances are different. With experience, you can learn to interpret the data you’re shown to get some idea of what’s going on. However, “experience” in that sentence means “years of correlating how the headphones sound with how the plots look with the measurement system(s) you use”. If you aren’t familiar with the measurement system and how it filters the measurement, then you won’t be able to interpret the data you get from it.

That said, you MIGHT be able to use one system to compare two different pairs of open headphones or two different pairs of closed headphones, but you can’t directly compare measurements of different headphone types (e.g. open and closed) reliably.

This also means that, if you subscribe to two different headphone magazines both of which use measurements as part of their reviews, and one of them uses a flat plate system while the other uses a dummy head, the same pairs of headphones might get opposite reviews in the two magazines…

Which review can you trust? Both of them – and neither of them.

Conclusions

Looking at these plots, you could come to the conclusion that you can’t trust anything, because no two measurements tell you the same things about the same devices. This is the incorrect conclusion to draw. These measurement systems are tools that we use to tell us something about the headphones on which we’re working. And people who use these tools daily know how to interpret the data they see from them. If something looks weird, they either expected it to look weird, or they run the measurement on another system to get a different view.

The danger comes when you make one measurement on one device and hold that up as The Truth. A result that you get from any one of these systems is not The Truth, but it is A Truth – you just need more information. If you’re only shown one measurement (or even an average of measurements) that was done on only one measurement system, then you should raise at least one eyebrow, and ask some questions about how that choice of system affects the plots that you see.

In many ways, it’s like looking at a recipe in a cookbook. You might be able to determine whether you might like or probably hate a dish by reading its description of ingredients and how to prepare it. But you cannot know how it’ll taste until you make it and put it in your mouth. And, if you cook like I do, it’ll be just a little different next time. It’s cooking – not a chemistry experiment. If you use headphones like I do, it’ll also be a little different next time because some days, I don’t wear my glasses, or I position the head band a little differently, so the leak around the ear cushion or the clamping force is a little different.

Acoustic measurements: Part 2

In Part 1, I talked about how any measurement of an audio device tells you something about how it behaves, but you need to know a LOT more than what you can learn from one measurements. This is especially true for a loudspeaker where you have the extra dimensions of physical space to consider.

Thought experiment: Fridges vs. Mosquitos

Consider a situation where you’re sitting at your kitchen table, and you can hear the compressor in your fridge humming/buzzing over on the other side of the room. If you make a small movement in your chair, the hum from the fridge sounds the same to you. This is partly because the distance from the fridge to you is much bigger than the changes in that distance that result from you shifting your butt.

Now think about the times you’ve been trying to sleep on a summer night, and there’s a mosquito that is flying near your ear. Very small changes in the location of that mosquito result in VERY big changes in how it sounds to you. This is because, relative to the distance to the mosquito, the changes in distance are big.

In other words, in the case of the fridge (that’s say, 3 m away) by moving 10 cm in your chair, you were changing the distance by about 3%, but the mosquito was changing its distance by more than 100% by moving just from 1 cm to 2 cm away.

In other words, a small change in distance makes a big change in sound when the distance is small to begin with.

The challenges of measuring headphones

The methods we use for measuring the magnitude response of a pair of headphones is similar to that used for measuring a loudspeaker. We send a measurement signal to the headphones from a computer, that signal comes out and is received by a microphone that sends its output back to the computer. The computer then is used to determine the difference between what it sent out and what came back. Simple, right?

Wrong.

The problems start with the fact that there are some fundamental differences between headphones and loudspeakers. For starters, there’s no “listening room” with headphones, so we don’t put a microphone 3 m away from the headphones: that wouldn’t make any sense. Instead, we put the headphones on some kind of a device that either simulates an ear, or a head, or a head with ears (with or without ear canals), and that device has a microphone (roughly) where your eardrum would be. Simple, right?

Wrong.

The problem in that sentence was the word “simulates”. How do you simulate an ear or a head or a head with ears? My ears are not shaped identically to yours or anyone else’s. My head is a different size than yours. I don’t have any hair, but you might. I wear glasses, but you might not. There are many things that make us different physically, so how can the device that we use to measure the headphones “simulate” us all? The simple answer to this question is “it can’t.”

This problem is compounded with the fact that measurement devices are usually made out of plastic and metal instead of human skin, so the headphones themselves “see” a different “acoustic load” on the measurement device than they do when they’re on a human head. (The people I work with call this your acoustic impedance.)

However, if your day job is to develop or test headphones, you need to use something to measure how they’re behaving. So, we do.

Headphone measurement systems

There are three basic types of devices that are used to measure headphones.

  • an artificial ear is typically a metal plate with a depression in the middle. At the bottom of the depression is a microphone. In theory, the acoustic impedance of this is similar to a human ear/pinna + the surrounding part of your head. In practice, this is impossible.
  • a headphone test fixture looks like a big metal can lying on its side (about the size of an old coffee can, for example) on a base. It might have flat metal sides, or it could have rubber pinnae (the fancy word for ears) mounted on it instead. In the centre of each circular end is a microphone.
  • a dummy head looks like a simplified model of a human head (typically a man’s head). It might have pinnae, but it might not. If it does, those pinnae might look very much like human ears, or they could look like simplified versions instead. There are microphones where you would expect them, and they might be at the bottom of ear canals, but you can also get dummy heads without ear canals where the microphones are flush with the side of the head.

The test system you use is up to you – but you have to know that they will all tell you something different. This is not only because each of them has a different acoustic response, but also because their different shapes and materials make the headphones themselves behave differently.

That last sentence is important to remember, not just for headphone measurement systems but also for you. If your head and my head are different from each other, AND your pinnae and my pinnae are different from each other, THEN, if I lend you my headphones, the headphones themselves will behave differently on your head than they do on my head. It’s not just our opinions of how they sound that are different – they actually sound different at our two sets of eardrums.

General headphone types

If I oversimplify headphone design, we can talk about two basic acoustical type of headphones: They can be closed (where the back of the diaphragm is enclosed in a sealed cabinet, and so the outside of the headphones is typically made of metal or plastic) or open (where the back of the diaphragm is exposed to the outside world, typically through a metal screen). I’d say that some kinds of headphones can be called semi-open, which just means that the screen has smaller (and/or fewer) holes in it, so there’s less acoustical “transparency” to the outside world.

Examples

To show that all these combinations are different, I took three pairs of headphones

  • open headphones
  • semi-open headphones
  • closed headphones

and I measured each of them on three test devices

  • artificial “simplified” ear
  • text fixture with a flat-plate
  • dummy head

In addition, to illustrate an additional issue (the “mosquito problem”), I did each of these 9 measurements 5 times, removing and replacing the headphones between each measurement. I was intentionally sloppy when placing the headphones on the devices, but kept my accuracy within ±5 mm of the “correct” location. I also changed the clamping force of the headphones on the test devices (by changing the extension of the headband to a random place each time) since this also has a measurable effect on the measured response.

Do not bother asking which headphones I measured or which test systems I used. I’m not telling, since it doesn’t matter. Not to me, anyway…

The raw results

I did these measurements using a 10-second sinusoidal sweep from 2 Hz to Nyquist, on a system running at 96 kHz. I’m plotting the magnitude responses with a range from 10 Hz to 40 kHz. However, since the sweep starts at 2 Hz, you can’t really trust the results below 20 Hz (a decade below the lowest frequency of interest is a good rule of thumb when using sine sweeps).

Figure 1: The “raw” magnitude responses of the open headphones measured 5 times each on the three systems
Figure 2: The “raw” magnitude responses of the semi-open headphones measured 5 times each on the three systems
Figure 3: The “raw” magnitude responses of the closed headphones measured 5 times each on the three systems

Looking at the results in the plots above, you can come to some very quick conclusions:

  • All of the measurements are different from each other, even when you’re looking at the same headphones on the same measurement device. This is especially true in the high frequency bands.
  • Each pair of headphones looks like it has a different response on each measurement system.
    For example, looking at Figure 3, the response of the headphones looks different when measured on a flat plate than on a dummy head.
  • The difference in the results of the systems are different with the different headphone types.
    For example, the three sets of plots for the “semi-open” headphones (Fig. 2) look more similar to each other than the three sets of plots for the “closed” headphones (Fig. 3)
  • the scale of these differences is big. Notice that we have an 80 dB scale on all plots… We’re not dealing with subtleties here…

In Part 3 of this series, we’ll dig into those raw results a little to compare and contrast them and talk a little about why they are as different as they are.

Acoustic measurements: Part 1

People who work in the audio industry use all kinds of different measurements to evaluate the performance of equipment. In many cases, the measurements we do are chosen because they’re easy to do (or because they were easy to do in “The Old Days”), and not because they accurately represent how the equipment actually behaves.

Magnitude response

One simple example of this is what most people call a frequency response but what is actually a magnitude response. This is a measure of how the level of an audio signal is changed by the device under test (the “DUT”) as a function of frequency. For example, if you’re measuring a RIAA-spec preamplifier (used for converting a turntable’s pickup’s output to a “line” level signal), then it should have a magnitude response that looks like the red line in the plot in Figure 1.

Figure 1: The red line shows the correct magnitude response for the frequency-dependent filtering in a RIAA phono preamplifier.

This curve shows that, relative to a signal at 1 kHz, the lower the frequency, the more gain is applied to the signal and the higher the frequency, the more attenuation is applied to the signal. Note that this curve is normalised to the level at 1 kHz, which should actually be +40 dB higher if we were to include the frequency-independent gain of the system.

It’s important to remember that this plot shows us only one thing: the change in level caused by the DUT as a function of a change in frequency of the signal. What this plot does NOT show us is much, much more… For example:

  • We don’t know anything about the behaviour of the system outside the boundaries of this plot.
  • We don’t know anything about its phase response.
  • We don’t know anything about how loud the noise of the DUT is.
  • We don’t know if this plot is true if we were to measure the DUT at a different input level.
  • We don’t know whether the DUT would have a different behaviour if the device that was feeding it had a different output impedance.
  • We don’t know whether the DUT would have a different behaviour if the device that it was feeding had a different input impedance.
  • We don’t know anything about whether the signal has any non-linear distortion artefacts.
    (Notice that I didn’t say “…whether the signal is distorted” because we know it’s distorted, since the output of the DUT is not the same as the input of the DUT. Any change in the signal is a form of distortion of the signal.)

I’m not saying that a simple magnitude response plot of a DUT is not useful. I’m just saying that it’s not enough information. It’s like asking for the temperature of a cup of coffee. It’s useful information, but it doesn’t tell you enough to know whether you’re going to enjoy drinking it (unless, of course, you hate coffee…)

This problem gets even worse when you’re measuring the acoustic output of a device like a loudspeaker or a pair of headphones, for example. (The acoustic input of a microphone is a similar problem in the opposite direction.)

Let’s start by thinking about a loudspeaker’s output in real life.

  1. You have a device that radiates sound in space in all directions. Let’s look at that space from the loudspeaker’s perspective and say that this means an angle of rotation around the loudspeaker, and an angle of elevation above/below the loudspeaker. That makes two dimensions.
  2. If we’re talking about the loudspeaker’s magnitude response, then we’re looking at its output level (one dimension) as a function of frequency (one more dimension).
  3. That speaker is (usually) in a room, and you’re probably also there too. We can then that this is in three-dimensional space when we talk about the walls, floor, ceiling, and your location inside that space.
  4. Since the surfaces in the room reflect the audio signal, then the time at which the signal arrives at the listening position must also be considered. The “sound” of a loudspeaker at a listening position before the first reflection arrives is different than after a bunch of reflections are coming in and the room has started resonating as well. So, time adds one more dimension to the problem.
  5. We’ll ignore the non-linear distortion artefacts produced by the loudspeaker and the fact that they radiate in different directions differently, since it’s already complicated enough… However, if we were to add things like changes in the response due to temperature of the voice coil or directionally-dependent distortion artefacts like breakup, this would wind up being a much longer discussion…

So, just looking at the small list of “usual suspects” above, we can see that evaluating the sound of a single loudspeaker in a listening room is at least an 8-dimensional problem. And this doesn’t even take things like 2-channel stereo or 7.1.4 multichannel or whether you’re listening to Aretha Franklin or Stockhausen into account…

In other words, it’s complicated. So, we use reductionism to try to start to get an idea of what’s going on. We put a microphone directly in front of a loudspeaker and measure its magnitude response at one level using one kind of test signal (e.g. a swept sine wave or an MLS) and we remove all the room’s reflections somehow. This reduces our 8-dimensional problem to a 2-dimensional version: we have level as a function of frequency and nothing else, since we’ve chosen to throw away everything else by the way we did the measurement.

Figure 2: The on-axis, free-field magnitude response of a loudspeaker.

For example, take a look at the magnitude response shown in Figure 2, which is a real measurement of a real loudspeaker. This measurement was performed using a swept-sine (a sinusoidal wave with a frequency that changes smoothly over time, typically from low to high) with a microphone on-axis to the loudspeaker at a distance of 3 m. The measurement was time-windowed to remove the room reflections, and therefore can be considered to be a “free field” (a sound field that is free of reflections) measurement. However, the roll-off in the low end is actually a combination of the actual response of the loudspeaker and the artefacts of using a shorter time window. (We would have needed to use a much bigger room to get less influence from the time windowing.)

So, this plot ONLY tells us how the loudspeaker behaves at one point in infinite space, when we’re ONLY asking “how does the level of the loudspeaker’s output vary with changes in frequency and we ONLY play sinusoidal signals at one level.” This is all useful information, but we need to know more – otherwise, we’ll jump to conclusions about whether this loudspeaker sounds “good” or not.

Just like looking at ONLY the temperature of a cup of coffee, this doesn’t give us enough of the story to know how the loudspeaker will “sound” (no matter what a magazine reviewer will try and tell you…).

In other words, if we use reductionism to understand the problem, you simplify the question so much that the problem you wind up understanding is not the same as the thing you’re trying to understand in the first place.

For example, if we measure that same loudspeaker at a different angle (by rotating the loudspeaker and leaving the microphone in place) we’ll see a magnitude response like the one shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3: The free-field magnitude response of the same loudspeaker, measured at 90º off-axis.

This magnitude response is the output of the same loudspeaker at 90º off-axis, which might be what’s heading towards your side-wall. If your side wall is perfectly reflective, then this is therefore the magnitude response of your first reflection, which might be a bad thing if you think that it’s important.

So, when you’re looking at any one measurement of anything, you don’t have enough information to know enough to make a general evaluation. However, unfortunately, many people will run with this information and make the evaluation anyway. It’s data, and data doesn’t lie, so this tells the truth, right?

Wrong. Because it’s only a portion of the total truth.

For example, you can say that “organic food is good for me” but I have an allergy to peanuts. So if I eat organic peanuts, I have about 20 minutes to get to a hospital. Much longer than that and I need a funeral home instead. “Organic” is true, but not enough information for me to know whether or not it’ll be an uneventful meal.

Mixing closed and ported cabinets: Part 6

As I showed in Part 5, the phase response of a loudspeaker driver in a closed cabinet is different from one in a ported cabinet in the low frequency region because, the low frequency output of the ported system is actually coming from the port, not the driver.

If we take the phase response plots from the two systems shown in Part 5 and put them on the same graph, the result is Figure 1.

Figure 1

If we calculate the difference in these two plots by subtracting the blue curve from the red curve at each frequency then we can see that a ported cabinet is increasingly out of phase relative to a sealed cabinet as you go lower and lower in frequency. This difference is shown in Figure 2.

Now, don’t look at that graph and say “but you never get to 180º so what’s the problem?” All of the plots I’ve shown in this series are for one specific driver in one specific enclosure, with and without a port of one specific diameter and length. I could have been more careful and designed two different enclosures (with and without a port) that does get to 180º (or something else up to 180º).

In other words: “results may vary”. Every loudspeaker in every cabinet has some magnitude response and some phase response (these are directly related to each other), and they’ll all be different by different amounts. (This is also the reason why I’m neglecting to talk about the fact that, as you go lower in frequency, the ported loudspeaker also drops faster in output level, so even if it were a full 180º out of phase, it would cancel less and less when combined with the sealed cabinet loudspeaker.)

The point of all of this was to show that, if you take two different loudspeakers with two different enclosure types, you get two different phase responses, particularly in the low frequency region.

This means that if you take those two loudspeaker types (the original question that inspired this series was specifically about mixing Beolab 9, Beolab 20, and Beolab 2 in a system where all of those loudspeakers are “helping” to produce the bass) and play identical signals from them in the same room, it’s not only possible, but highly likely that they will wind up cancelling each other. This results in LESS bass instead of MORE, ignoring all other effects like loudspeaker placement, room modes, and so on.

But Beolab 2 has slave drivers, not ports…

Figure 3

Take a look at Figure 3. I’ve shown a conceptual drawing of a ported loudspeaker (showing the mass of the air in the port as a red rectangle) on the left and a loudspeaker with a slave driver (on the bottom – notice it’s missing a former and voice coil, and the diaphragm is thicker to make it heavy) on the right.

This should make it intuitively obvious that a ported loudspeaker and an enclosure with a slave driver are effectively identical. This raises the question of why you would do one rather than the other.

The advantages of using a port instead of a slave driver is that a port will be more “stable” on a production line (since all of the ports on all the loudspeakers you make will be identical in size) and they’ve very cheap to make. The disadvantage of a port is that if the velocity of the air moving in and out of it is too high, then you hear it “chuffing”, which is a noise caused by turbulence around the edges of the port. (If you blow across the top of a wine bottle, you don’t hear a perfect sine wave, you hear a very noisy “breathy” one. The noise is the chuffing.)

The advantage of a slave driver is that you don’t get any turbulence, and therefore no chuffing. A slave driver can also be heavier than the air in a port in a smaller space, so you can get the response of a large port in a smaller loudspeaker. There is a small disadvantage in the fact that there will be production line tolerance variations (but this is not really a big worry), and then there’s the price, which is much higher than a hole in a box.

This means that if you take anything I’ve said above about ported loudspeakers, and replace the word “port” with “slave driver” then it’s still true.

P.S.

If you do have a surround system that not only has a bass management system, but is also capable of re-directing the bass to more loudspeakers than just your subwoofer (as is the case with all current Bang & Olfusen surround processors in the televisions), then all of this is important to remember. You can’t just send the bass to more loudspeakers and expect to get more output. You might get less.

This is true unless you have a Beosound Theatre. This is because the Theatre has an extra bit of processing in the signal path called “Phase Compensation” which applies an allpass filter to the outputs, compensating for the phase differences between loudspeakers in the low frequency region. So, in this one particular case, you should expect to get more output from more loudspeakers.

Mixing closed and ported cabinets: Part 5

Let’s build a ported box and put a woofer in it. If we measure the magnitude responses of the individual outputs of the driver and the port as well as the total output of the entire loudspeaker, they might look like the three curves shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1

If you take a look at the curves at 1 kHz, you can see that the total output (the blue curve) is the same as the woofer’s output (the red curve) because the port’s output (the yellow curve) is so low that it’s not contributing anything.

As we come down in frequency, we see the output of the port coming up and the output of the driver coming down. At around 20 Hz, the port reaches its maximum output and the woofer reaches its minimum as a result. In fact that woofer’s output is about 15 dB lower than the port’s at that frequency.

As we go farther down in frequency, we can see that the woofer comes up and then starts to drop again, but the port just drops in level the lower we go.

Now look at the total output (the blue curve) from 20 Hz and down. Notice that the total output of the system from 20 Hz down to about 15 Hz is LOWER than the output of the port alone. As you go below about 15 Hz, you can see that the total output is lower than either the woofer or the port.

This means that the port and the woofer are cancelling each other, just like I described in the previous part in this series. This can be seen when we look at their respective phase responses, shown in the middle plot in Figure 2. I’ve also plotted the difference in the woofer and the port phase responses in the bottom plot.

Figure 2

Notice that, below 20 Hz, the woofer and the port are about 180º apart. So, as the woofer moves out of the enclosure, the air in the port moves inwards, and the total sum is less than either of the two individual outputs.

What happens when you put a woofer in a sealed enclosure instead of one with a port? The responses from this kind of system are shown below in Figure 3.

Figure 3

The first thing that you’ll notice in the plots in Figure 3 is that there is only one curve in each graph. This is because the total output is the driver output.

You’ll also notice in the top plot that a woofer in a cabinet acts as a second-order high-pass filter because the cabinet is not too small for the driver. If the cabinet were smaller, then you’d see a peak in the response, but let’s say that I’m not that dumb…

Because it’s a second-order high-pass filter, it has a phase response that approaches 180º as you go down in frequency.

Now, compare that phase response in the low end of Figure 3 to the phase response of the low end in Figure 2. This is where we’re headed, since the purpose of all of this discussion is to talk about what happens when you have a system that combines sealed enclosures with ported ones. That brings us to Part 6.

Mixing closed and ported cabinets: Part 4

In Part 1, I showed how a wine bottle behaves exactly like a mass on a spring where the mass is the cylinder of air in the bottle’s neck and the spring is the air inside the bottle itself.

Figure 1

I also showed how a loudspeaker driver (like a woofer) in a closed box is the same thing, where the spring is the combination of the surround, the spider and the air in the box.

Figure 2

But what happens if the speaker enclosure is not sealed, but instead is open to the outside world through a “port” which is another way of saying “a tube”. Then, conceptually, you are combining the loudspeaker driver with the wine bottle like I’ve shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3

If I were to show this with all the masses in red and all the springs in blue, it would look like Figure 4.

Figure 4

Now things are getting a little complicated, so let’s take things slowly… literally.

If the loudspeaker driver in Figure 4 moves into the cabinet very slowly (say, you push it with your fingers or you play a very low frequency with an electrical signal), then the air that it displaces in of the bottle (the enclosure) will just push the plug of air out the bottle’s neck (the port). The opposite will happen if you pull the driver out of the enclosure: you’ll suck air into the port.

If, instead you move the driver back and forth very quickly (by playing a very high frequency) then the inertia of the air inside the cabinet (shown as the big blue spring in the middle) prevents it from moving down near the port. In fact, if the frequency is high enough, then the air at the entrance of the port doesn’t move at all. This means that, for very high frequencies, the system will behave exactly the same as if the enclosure were sealed.

But somewhere between the very low frequencies and the very high frequencies, there is a “magic” frequency where the air in the port resonates, and there, things don’t behave intuitively. At that frequency, whenever the driver is trying to move into the enclosure, the air in the port is also moving into the enclosure. And, although the air has less mass than the driver, it’s free to move more. The end result is that, at the port’s resonant frequency, the driver (in theory) doesn’t move at all*, and the air in the port is moving a lot.**

In other words, you can think of a single driver in a ported cabinet as being basically the same as a two-way loudspeaker, where the woofer (for example) is one driver and the port is the other “driver”.

  • At high frequencies, the sound is only coming out of the woofer (for example).
  • As you come down in frequency and get closer to the port’s resonance, you get less and less from the woofer and more and more from the port.
  • At the port’s resonant frequency, all* of the sound is coming from the movement of the air in and out of the port
  • As you go lower than the port’s resonant frequency, the woofer starts working again, but now as the woofer moves out of the enclosure (making a positive pressure) it sucks air into the port (making a negative pressure). So, at very low frequencies, the woofer is working very hard, but you get very little sound output because the port cancels it out.

If you look at this as a magnitude response (the correct term for “frequency response” for this discussion), you can think of the woofer having one response, the port having a different response, and the two adding together somehow to produce a total response for the entire loudspeaker.

However, as you can see from the short 4-point list above, something happens with the phase of the signal at different frequencies. This is most obvious in the “very low frequency” part, where the woofer’s and the port’s outputs are 180º out of phase with each other.

In Part 5 we’ll look at these different components of the total output separately, both in terms of magnitude and phase responses (which, combined are the frequency response).

* Okay okay…. I say “the driver (in theory) doesn’t move at all” and “all of the sound is coming from the movement of the air in and out of the port” which is a bit of an exaggeration. But it’s not MUCH of an exaggeration…

** This is an oversimplified explanation. The slightly less simplified version is that the air inside the cabinet is acting like a spring that’s getting squeezed from two sides: the driver and the air in the port. The driver “sees” the “spring” (the air in the box) as pushing and pulling on it just as much as its pulling and pushing, so it can’t move (very much…).

Mixing closed and ported cabinets: Part 3

Before starting on this portion of the series, I’ll ask you to think about how little energy (or movement) it takes to get a resonant system oscillating. For example, if you have a child on a swing, a series of very gentle pushes at the right times can result in them swinging very high. Also, once the child is swinging back and forth, it takes a lot of effort to stop them quickly.

Moving onwards…

So far, we’ve seen that a loudspeaker driver in a closed cabinet can be thought of as just a mass on a spring, and, as a result, it has some natural resonance where it will oscillate at some frequency.

The driver is normally moved by sending an electrical signal into its voice coil. This causes the coil to produce a magnetic field and, since it’s already sitting in the magnetic field of a permanent magnet, it moves. The surround and spider prevent it from moving sideways, so it can only move outwards (if we send electrical current in one direction) or inwards (if we send current in the other direction).

When you try to move the driver, you’re working against a number of things:

  • the inertia of the mass of the moving parts
    Pick up a heavy book, for example, and try to push and pull it back and forth. It’s hard work!
  • the inertia of the air directly in front of and behind the driver
    Pick up a big sheet of stiff plastic (like the thing you put on the floor under an office chair) and try to push it back and forth. It’s also hard work!
  • the compliance (springiness) of the surround, spider, and air trapped in the cabinet behind the driver
    Blow up a ballon, and use your two hands to squeeze it repeatedly. It’s also hard work!

These three things can be considered separately from each other as a static effect. In other words:

  • It’s hard work to pick up a book or push a car that’s broken down (forget about pushing-and-pulling – just push OR pull)
  • It’s hard work to run into a headwind with that big piece of stiff plastic
  • It’s hard work to squeeze a balloon and keep it compressed

But, if you’re pushing AND pulling the loudspeaker driver there is another effect that’s dynamic.

When you’re moving the driver at a VERY low frequency, you’re mostly working against the “spring” which is probably quite easy to do. So, at a low frequency, the driver is pretty easy to move, and it’s moving so slowly that it doesn’t push back electrically. So, it does not impede the flow of current through the voice coil.

When you’re moving the driver at a VERY high frequency, you’re mostly working against the inertia of the moving parts and the adjacent air molecules. The higher the frequency, the harder it is to move the driver.

However, when you’re trying to moving the driver at exactly the resonant frequency of the driver, you don’t need much energy at all because it “wants” to move at that same rate. However, at that frequency, the voice coil is moving in the magnetic field of the permanent magnet, and it generates electricity that is trying to move current in the opposite direction of what your amp is going. In other words, at the driver’s resonant frequency, when you’re trying to push current into the voice coil, it generates a current that pushes back. When you try to pull current out of the voice coil, it generates a current that pulls back.

In other words, at the driver’s resonant frequency, your amplifier “sees” the driver as as a thing that is trying to impede the flow of electrical current. This means that you get a lot of movement with only a little electrical current; just like the child on the swing gets to go high with only a little effort – but only at one frequency.

This is a nice, simple case where you have a moving mass (the moving parts of the driver) and a spring (the surround, spider, and air in the sealed box). But what happens when the speaker has a port?

On to Part 4…

Mixing closed and ported cabinets: Part 2

Let’s look at a typical moving coil loudspeaker driver like the woofer shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

If I were to draw a cross-section of this and display it upside-down, it would look like Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Typically, if we send a positive voltage/current signal to a driver (say, the attack of a kick drum to a woofer) then it moves “forwards” or “outwards” (from the cabinet, for example). It then returns to the rest position. If we send it a negative signal, then it moves “backwards” or “inwards”. This movement is shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Notice in Figure 3 that I left out all of the parts that don’t move: the basket, the magnet and the pole piece. That’s because those aren’t important for this discussion.

Also notice that I used only two colours: red for the moving parts that don’t move relative to each other (because they’re all glued together) and blue for the stretchy parts that act as a spring. These colours relate directly to the colours I used in Part 1, because they’re doing exactly the same thing. In other words, if you hold a woofer by the basket or magnet, and tap it, it will “bounce” up and down because it’s just a mass suspended by a spring. And, just like I talked about in Part 1, this means that it will oscillate at some frequency that’s determined by the relationship of the mass to the spring’s compliance (a fancy word for “springiness” or “stiffness” of a spring. The more compliant it is, the less stiff.) In other words, I’m trying to make it obvious that Figure 3, above is exactly the same as Figures 3 and 5 in Part 1.

However, it’s very rare to see a loudspeaker where the driver is suspended without an enclosure. Yes, there are some companies that do this, but that’s outside the limits of this discussion. So, what happens when we put a loudspeaker driver in a sealed cabinet? For the purposes of this discussion, all it means is that we add an extra spring attached to the moving parts.

Figure 4

I’ve shown the “spring” that the air provides as a blue coil attached to the back of the dust cap. Of course, this is not true; the air is pushing against all surfaces inside the loudspeaker. However, from the outside, if you were actually pushing on the front of the driver with your fingers, you would not be able to tell the difference.

This means that the spring that pushes or pulls the loudspeaker diaphragm back into position is some combination of the surround (typically made of rubber nowadays), the spider (which might be made of different things…) and the air in the sealed cabinet. Those three springs are in parallel, so if you make one REALLY stiff (or lower its compliance) then it becomes the important spring, and the other two make less of a difference.

So, if you make the cabinet too small, then you have less air inside it, and it becomes the predominant spring, making the surround and spider irrelevant. The bigger the cabinet, the more significant a role the surround and spider play in the oscillation of the system.

Sidebar: If you are planning on making a lot of loudspeakers on a production line, then you can use this to your advantage. Since there is some variation in the compliance of the surround and spider from driver-to-driver, then your loudspeakers will behave differently. However, if you make the cabinet small, then it becomes the most important spring in the system, and you get loudspeakers that are more like each other because their volumes are all the same.

Remember from part 1 that if you increase the stiffness of the spring, then the resonant frequency of the oscillation will increase. It will also ring for longer in time. In practical terms, if you put a woofer in a big sealed cabinet and tap it, it will sound like a short “thump”. But if the cabinet is too small, then it will sound like a higher-pitched and longer-ringing “bonnnnnnnggggg”.

So far, we’ve only been talking about physical things: masses and springs. In the next part, we’ll connect the loudspeaker driver to an amplifier and try to push and pull it with electrical signals.