Talk:Damping factor

Electronics Low‑importance

	Electronics portal This article is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about electronics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Leave messages at the project talk pageElectronicsWikipedia:WikiProject ElectronicsTemplate:WikiProject Electronicselectronic articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by .

what would be an example of a large damping factor and a small one?[edit]

Thanks for any info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.229.165 (talk) 17:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Previous archive missing?[edit]

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

Earlier talk archived at:

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

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

86.174.152.128 (talk) 12:02, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

archiving is nonsense[edit]

Sorry, but to archive SMALL Quantities of text I consider that as nonsense.

The article is not as good, the contribution here usually help. --AK45500 (talk) 16:43, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Critical damping of loudspeakers[edit]

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.

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

Large Damping Factor is desirable for audio amplifiers[edit]

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)

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

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. --AK45500 (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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. XaXXon (talk) 05:49, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]