• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

damping factor, that important?

Well, you are close. Damping factor is the ratio of the load divided by the amp's output impedance.

Problem is the "load" should be the moving voice coil the amp is attempting to control. Unfortunately, it's NOT the only load. As JimInPA points out the resistance of the speaker wire comes into play, but even more important is the coil in series with the woofer. That coil serves as the low pass filter and effectively raises the system's output impedance ... significantly.

So, what does this mean? It means that for most speaker systems the amplifier damping factor has little impact on the resulting sound.

The systems where the damping factor "could" have an impact are those systems where we have removed the coil as in active bi-amping or powered sub-woofers.

If you don't beleive this, then work out the math.

Regards,
Jerry
I'm afraid I have to object to this statement. This high of an increase in impedance only takes place if there is no zobel or high frequency driver in the speaker system. The coil in the woofer is still a dynamic contributor to varying impedance and "back EMF" regardless of components in series or parallel thus there is a need for damping or absorption or this current.
 
Or, perhaps those who haven't heard an improvement already had something that already had enough of what ever it is. :scratch2: :D

yes..... :scratch2:

Your limerick makes sense to me.....

But then they should take some away to know what you mean.....

jk
 
I'll just post something from another forum that had this discussion earlier this year:

Originally posted by Conrad Hoffman
Lots of NFB and bring the feedback pick-off point right to the output terminal, assuming no output network. If there's a network between the feedback point and the output terminal, and there usually is, be sure the coil is heavy gage wire, along with the rest of the wiring. Be sure the return wiring is heavy as well. The benefit of very high damping is debatable, since any length of speaker wire quickly destroys it anyway. It's more of a marketing thing.

I think that in the early days of transistors, the enormous amounts of NFB needed to tame the bipolar transistors produced such high numbers (Damping Factor) that it, along with THD, were exploited to delineate the "Advances" in amplifier design that the new devices were ushering in. The numbers took on an importance that the actual results wouldn't have, IMHO.

Best Regards,
TerryO
 
.

You really could measure everything, if you knew what to measure.

Meanwhile, trust your ears.

I think you are right, it can be measured......besides the traditional Speaker resistance / Amp internal load and most likely at the resonance freq of the speaker.

Maybe put a scope some where in the amps feedback path....then monitor the amount of feedback for different amps vs speakers combos vs the amps gain.


Then something to do with Thiele/Smalls pararmeters of speaker......and microphone to record the speaker movement....to compare the test pulse to the actual....

Test pulse would be a signal at the resonance Freq and then stopped...you would look to see how fast the speaker stops ringing on....and how much feedback is/can be applied to halt it.

Some mess like that.....heavy cones need more mechanical or electrical dampening.....


jk
 
Yes, speaker wires are the common DF leveler.

I posted a spreadsheet a while back that showed various gross DFs and then the net DFs with speaker cables.

Even those amps with super high DF all settle back to around 100-150, give or take, when connected with moderate lengths of typical speaker cable. See post 19 in this thread.

As the saying goes, the higher you are the further you fall.
 
I think you are right, it can be measured......besides the traditional Speaker resistance / Amp internal load and most likely at the resonance freq of the speaker.

Maybe put a scope some where in the amps feedback path....then monitor the amount of feedback for different amps vs speakers combos vs the amps gain.


Then something to do with Thiele/Smalls pararmeters of speaker......and microphone to record the speaker movement....to compare the test pulse to the actual....

Test pulse would be a signal at the resonance Freq and then stopped...you would look to see how fast the speaker stops ringing on....and how much feedback is/can be applied to halt it.

Some mess like that.....heavy cones need more mechanical or electrical dampening.....


jk

Read the article in the link I provided. They do almost exactly that, and basically show that different DFs didn't much change the time for the cone movement at resonance to stop.
 
I wonder :scratch2:

If simply knowing the resistance of the speaker wire, the resistance of the speaker and in the amps internal resistance....

Apply a test Pulse at the resonance Freq...

Stop the Pulse...

Then measuring the test signal before the amp, at the amps output and the voltage drop across the speaker wire would provide enough measurements to calculate the Dampening that is taking place....


You might be able calculate everything from those measurements...... ( after you smoke a joint that is....)

jk
 
I changed the damping on my Accuphase E-202 from 'Normal' to 'Medium' today for an experiment. I'm running it into NS-609's at the moment. Huge improvement, actually not just noticeable. Oddly, most improvement was in the midrange and lower treble, though bass cleaned up a bit as well. I also tried 'Soft' and it sounded very wooly. Now all I need to do is look up what Accuphase means exactly by 'Normal' Medium' and 'Soft'.

It the variable being changed is the amount of NFB (through various degrees of antenuation in the NFB signal path) in the final power amps, then the amp is getting cleaner at the same time you raise the DF, I would think. Does your manual spec the RMS power at these different damping factors ?
 
It the variable being changed is the amount of NFB (through various degrees of antenuation in the NFB signal path) in the final power amps, then the amp is getting cleaner at the same time you raise the DF, I would think. Does your manual spec the RMS power at these different damping factors ?
I downloaded the manual from Accuphase and found the secs for DF as quoted, 1 for 'Soft', 5 for 'Medium' and 50 for 'Normal'. No indication of any sort re. RMS watts related to any of these. Whether that means no variance or not I've no idea.

When I first got the E-202 back in Fall I tried it with the Vandersteen 2C's in my main system and noted that the different DF settings didn't seem to make any change (or if it did it was very subtle). With the NS-690's the difference was dramatic; 'Medium' was a huge improvement over 'Normal in every way. I must say that one change in the meantime is that all of the switches were thoroughly cleaned (including that for DF) and that quite a number of solder joints were re-flowed. Not quite a level playing field, then.
 
Not sure your point, since all damping factor ever has been is a calculated number.

Well not really just a calculated number.... Dampening is the ability of a system to control a parameter... You can have under damped, over damped and critically damped. All of which can be measured....

Under damped is what is call "ringing".

In the case of a speaker, the unwanted "ringing" motion of the driver is sent back to the Amp in the form of Back EMF... which would show up as a current in the speaker wires, measurable in the form of Voltage drop across the know resistance of the of the speaker wire.... That incorrect voltage and current shows up at the amp and then Feedback attempts to correct it....and the internal resistance tries to dissipate it in the form of heat.

Comparing the current flow and voltages after the test signal pulse has stopped and the speaker continues to "ringing on" ....and the amp is tying to correct it....the is the interesting time...or may the easier time to measure voltage.

Blurry bass .... is under damped.... ( Ringing )
Lifeless....is over damped.... ( Slow to respond )
Just right....is critically Damped ( most accurate )

Might be an interesting experiment.... but cleaning my hair brush or the basement would come first....

jk
 
Well not really just a calculated number.... jk

When it comes to the number assigned to an amplifier, that's all it is. A calculated value, based on the amplifier's output impedance and speaker (nominal) impedance.

One can make of it what they will beyond that.
 
High damping factor and large diameter wire = noticeable improvement in bass. The higher you start, the higher you end up, and if you do your best to take advantage of it with large diameter wire (i.e. 8-12 ga) and minimized lengths, you can end up with 4-6 times the damping factor of lower DF amps. The difference can be heard, and if you biamp/triamp, high damping factor is a feature you can benefit from in your sub amp.
 
But it represents "control".....


Did you read the article in the link I posted?

To quote the conclusions of the article....

Conclusions:
There may be audible differences that are caused by non-zero source resistance. However, this analysis and any mode of measurement and listening demonstrates conclusively that it is not due to the changes in damping the motion of the cone at the point where it's at it's most uncontrolled: system resonances. Even considering the substantially larger response variations resulting from the non-flat impedance vs. frequency function of most loudspeakers, the magnitude of the problem simply is not what is claimed.

Rather, the people advocating the importance of high damping factors must look elsewhere for a culprit: motion control at resonance, or damping, simply fails to explain the claimed differences.
 
Most of what I've seen in defense of high damping factor are just the old excuses that I spent many years going along with myself. Recent work, however, has indicated that most of the "legends' about the usefulness of a lot of DF is just that: Legends.
Below is cut and pasted from yet another forum that I posted to last Summer:

Nelson Pass has, over the years, been trying to achieve the "sound" of a good single ended design with little or no negative feedback. He has admitted that tubes can sound very good and a SET is just about the perfect configuration for those requirements, with the exception of power. Triodes are the most linear device yet conceived while transistors usually require copious amounts of NFB to achieve linearity and their vanishingly small amounts of Total Harmonic Distortion (THD).

If the THD figures equated to good sound, then all would be right with the world, but it seems that this isn't the case as tubes have many times the THD as most SS amp and yet...
Nelson Pass has been advocating reduction in NFB, especially Global Feedback, as a key to better (more tube-like?) sound. Coupled with reduction in the number of gain stages (he's down to one stage on the recent designs) he seems to have achieved significant sonic advances with his First-Watt designs.

Tubes have been commonly faulted as having "flabby, out of control bass" and critics have been quick to point out that tubes, especially SETs have very low Damping Factors, often under 20, while SS has numbers into the many 100's.
As the Damping Factor of a SS amp is almost always derived from high levels of negative feedback, we start to see this "number" is a "byproduct" of NFB and isn't actually or necessarily a bonus. Tubes with their output transformers can almost always achieve a half octave of bass extention over most transistor designs... if the impedance of the speaker is fairly flat. This is easy to test by installing a 2 or 3 ohm power resistor in series between your SS amp and the speaker's positive input terminal. The resistor will lower the effective damping factor of the amp as seen by the speaker and you will probably gain some bass extension. Many of the best speaker designers (Greg Monfort for example), when doing a custom design will ask if you're planning on using tubes, as they take that into consideration in the overall design plan. Where tubes run into problems is with wild, fluctuating impedance curves. Please note that it's the curve that's important, not just a static number summarizing the whole complex impedance variations. As a lot of speakers are voiced using SS amps, the impedance curve tends to be forgotten as it really isn't as big an issue as it is with a tube amp. It's no wonder that tubes sound bad in many systems, as they have to contend with circumstances that are not congenial and should have been taken into consideration during the speaker design process.

Now that I've gotten that off my chest, I believe that bi-amping is the way to go with tubes for the mids and treble (they sound great) and a powerful SS amp for the bass. Yes, you should look at the impedance curve of your woofers and you can certainly apply the series resistor trick to see if you can add some bass extension with the SS amp.

Best Regards,
TerryO
 
Well I have to disagree with that one .... that DF does not represent control.

Reason I disagree... I am an owner of Ohm F's....one of the heaviest speaker cones made... DF's positive affects are clearly heard with them.... Power and DF are critical for them. Power alone does not do it for them....

Maybe with a lighter speaker cone other factors come in to play...with the F's its Mass and the ability to control it....

jk
 
I understand. It is hard to accept things that challenge our beliefs.

And yes, I understand that is a two-way street.
 
I'm going by memory here but doesn't a sansui 5000a have a damping position switch on the back? That would be a quick way to determine damping effect. I had one many many years ago but I didn't even know what df was or what it did back then. Any 5000a owners out there?
 
Back
Top Bottom