This invention relates to loudspeaker drivers and to suspensions therefore. The invention relates especially to drivers having a diaphragm suspended within a frame or so-called basket by a surrounding suspension which flexes as the diaphragm is driven back and forth relative to the frame by the loudspeaker drive unit, usually a voice coil. The invention also relates to a method of producing such a loudspeaker driver suspension.
The mechanical structure and function of loudspeaker drivers of the kind which have an electro-acoustic transducer are well known. A flexible surrounding suspension connects the periphery of the diaphragm to the surrounding frame. A second, smaller flexible suspension element connects the centre portion of the diaphragm to the frame; both suspension elements permit a drive unit, usually a “voice coil”, to move the diaphragm axially in order to radiate sound waves. Ideally, diaphragm motion is directly proportional to the electrical signal that is fed into the voice coil. Due to dimensional and material limitations, however, this is not attainable in practice. One source of such limitations is the suspension itself because, as the diaphragm is displaced axially, unwanted deformation occurs at certain axial displacements.
The surround suspension performs several functions in a loudspeaker driver, namely, (i) keeping the diaphragm (cone) centered; (ii) sealing the loudspeaker driver in an enclosure or baffle and separating air mass in front of and behind of the cone, thereby avoiding cancellation; and (iii) allowing diaphragm (cone) to move back and forth to produce sound. In order to reproduce low frequencies properly, the diaphragm needs to move a substantial distance without becoming unstable. This has led to the use of a “roll” suspension which flexes back and forth as the diaphragm moves axially. A wider roll (longer in transverse cross-section) will permit greater travel of the diaphragm but, for a given frame, increasing the width of the roll surround suspension reduces the effective radiator area of the diaphragm.
The axial displacement permitted by a roll suspension having a semi-circular profile is limited to about 1.2 times its width because, at that point, the roll is fully stretched into a conical surface. A roll suspension having a parabolic or elliptical profile with a height more than half its width will permit a greater displacement than a semi-circular roll suspension having the same width.
Such a parabolic roll surround suspension is disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 3,997,023 (White). Although such a roll suspension might permit adequate axial movement, however, at certain displacements unwanted deformation of the suspension itself may occur, causing non-linearity and introducing distortion in the output of the loudspeaker. More particularly, it has been found that “wrinkling” occurs when the diaphragm moves inwards. This is caused by compression of the surround material and is most pronounced with taller and/or wider rolls, such as in subwoofers. Such wrinkles produce sound distortion and can even cause the surround material to break. In practice, therefore, total diaphragm displacement or excursion becomes limited by buckling deformation of the roll.
Several solutions have been proposed for unwanted deformation of the roll suspension while maintaining range of travel and linearity. Some propose the use of reinforcing elements, for example radially-oriented ridges at intervals around the surround, as taught in U.S. Pat. No. 6,725,967 (Dikbowicki), or angularly-oriented notches, as taught by U.S. Pat. No. 7,054,459 (Kuze et al.), or varying the thickness or density at intervals of a compressed neoprene surround as taught in US2003/0228027 (Czerwinski). While this may help in reducing wrinkling/buckling, it does not completely eliminate it because there are still sections of the roll where compressive stress concentrates. In addition there is excessive stress concentration around notches or ridges due to relatively abrupt or sharp transitions in geometry. This could even lead to eventual material failure due to fatigue.
U.S. Pat. No. 7,275,620 (Dietrich et al.) discloses a rectangular loudspeaker in which the generally rectangular surround has notches and ridges defining trapezoidal formations at the corners. This is not entirely satisfactory because relatively sharp transitions would still lead to unwanted stress and non-linearity.
U.S. Pat. No. 6,889,796 (Pocock et al.) discloses a surround suspension in which the cross-section of the roll alternates between semi-circular and semi-elliptical, forming convolutions or undulations. In addition, the fillet where the roll meets the diaphragm varies sinusoidally in phase with the undulations. An obvious drawback of such solution is that the excursion is still limited to that of the semicircular portions of the roll. Also stress would occur around the transitions, leading to deformation.
Yet another solution, disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 7,397,927 (Pircaro et al.), adds angularly—(as opposed to radially-) oriented convolutions to a base profile of the roll. While this might help to reduce wrinkling/buckling, it is not entirely satisfactory because it would tend to introduce torsional stress into the drive system and have an adverse effect upon linearity.
With a view to improving high frequency stability by preventing unwanted deformation in the diaphragm, U.S. Pat. No. 6,697,496 (Frasl) discloses a low profile suspension having pleats along its length. The pleats are divided into three equal 120 degree segments, with the pleats in each segment parallel to each other but oriented at an angle of 120 degrees to those in the other two segments. While this might help to reduce unwanted diaphragm oscillations at higher frequencies, the arrangement would not be entirely satisfactory because its low profile would mitigate against it use for low frequency loudspeakers and stress concentrations would occur between adjacent pleats having different orientations, i.e., endmost pleats of the different segments.
U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,851,513 and 7,174,990 (Stead et al.) disclose a surround suspension whose peak varies in shape around the circumference, either by alternating between a semi-circular cross-section and other conic section that is greater in height, or by varying the radius of the peak sinusoidally along the circumference. Neither option is entirely satisfactory because the uniform sections would tend not to reduce buckling completely and/or relatively sharp transitions between peaks and uniform roll sections would lead to stress and distortion.
U.S. Pat. No. 7,438,155 (Stead et al.) discloses a loudspeaker drive unit similar to those disclosed in their above-mentioned patents. In this case, however, the peak of the roll surround varies sinusoidally around the perimeter while maintaining constant height, but its cross-sectional shape varies. This too would not be entirely satisfactory because the transitions between peaks and troughs would still introduce stress and distortion.
In effect, convolutions transform material compression into bending, which flexible materials are designed to do, but known configurations are not entirely satisfactory because the geometry of the convolutions does not adequately reduce stress at transitions, leading to deformation stress in the suspension material and concomitant distortion in the loudspeaker driver output.
An object of the present invention is to at least mitigate the deficiencies of known such loudspeaker drivers, or at least provide an alternative.
According to one aspect of the present invention, a loudspeaker driver has a diaphragm suspended within a frame by a surrounding roll suspension that flexes as the diaphragm is driven back and forth relative to the frame by the loudspeaker drive unit, the roll suspension having a cross-section that is a non-circular section through a cone, the height of the roll suspension medial its inner and outer edges alternating between higher and lower levels to define peaks and troughs,
The use of a conic cross-section whose height is greater than half the width, provides a greater range of displacement than a semi-circular cross-section suspension design of the same width.
Preferably, the non-circular conical sectional shape is a parabola.
Adding pleats adds additional material to the roll suspension thereby increasing its mass. Since additional mass can be detrimental to performance, it is desirable to keep this increase to a minimum. It follows that the lowest high-low ratio to eliminate unwanted deformation is preferable. The ratio between higher and lower sections (peaks and troughs) of the roll suspension is greater than 1:1, since 1:1 would result in no difference between the higher and lower profiles and therefore no undulations. Preferably, the ratio also is no more than about 2:1, since a higher/lower ratio of 2:1 or greater would result in pleats twice as high as the base profile (troughs) and might introduce stability problems, specifically unwanted side-to-side oscillation of peaks, creating unwanted distortion. In preferred embodiments, a high/low ratio of approximately 1.2:1 is preferred, especially where the conical section is parabolic.
The transitions between peaks and troughs may comprise a polyline comprising straight lines joined at the peaks by arcs and at the troughs by arcuate fillets.
Advantageously, the undulations in the roll suspension minimize undesirable compressive buckling load, allowing controlled bending load while the smooth transition between the lower cross-section and the higher cross-section reduces the wrinkling/buckling effects.
Preferably, the higher and lower parabolas share the same end points so that, at the inner and outer edges of the suspension, where the suspension is attached to the diaphragm and frame, respectively, the corrugations (pleats) disappear. Otherwise, the “pleats” would tend to be subject to undesirable deformation.
The number of peaks should be kept to the minimum number required to allow them to adequately perform their function, without introducing additional unnecessary mass. In preferred embodiments of the invention, the angular separation between peaks is about five (5) degrees.
The suspension cross-section variation (i.e. pleats) profile can be presented as a set of line segments joined together by fillets. A larger angle between line segments will result in fewer pleats; a smaller angle will result in more pleats. For a high/low ratio of 1.2:1 an angle somewhere between 60 and 120 degrees provides desired results.
According to a second aspect of the present invention, there is provided a method of designing a loudspeaker driver suspension comprising the steps of generating a lofted surface as a straight undulating or corrugated tubular member having a profile with peaks and troughs having a prescribed height ratio and length corresponding to the perimeter of the diaphragm, shaping the tubular member to the outer perimeter of the diaphragm and attaching surface attachments, such as inner and outer flanges, for adhering or over moulding, for connecting the inner and outer edge areas of the suspension to the diaphragm and frame, respectively.
The foregoing and other objects, features, aspects and advantages of the present invention will become more apparent from the following detailed description, taken in conjunction with the accompanying drawings, of preferred embodiments of the invention, which are described by way of example only.
In the drawings, identical or corresponding elements in the different Figures have the same reference numeral.
Referring first to
The arc length C for semi-circular cross-section suspension 21 is:
C=Π*W/2=1.571*W
The excursion limit A for semi-circular cross-section suspension can be expressed by the following formula:
A=√{square root over (C2−W2)}=√{square root over ((Π*W/2)2−W2)}=√{square root over (W2*((Π/2)2−1))}=W*√{square root over ((Π/2)2−1)}=1.211*W
The segment length D for parabolic cross-section suspension 22 can be approximated by the following formula:
D=√{square root over (W2/4+4*)}H2+W2/(8*H)*arcsin h(4*H/W)
For a width to height ratio of parabolic profile of 1.5, for example, H can be substituted by W/1.5, so:
D=1.744*W
The excursion limit B for parabolic cross-section suspension can be expressed as follows:
B=√{square root over (D2−W2)}=√{square root over ((1.744*W))}2−W2=W*√{square root over (1.7442−1)}=1.429*W
Since, for the same width to height ratio of 1.5:1, B=1.429*W and A=1.211*W, these calculations demonstrate that diaphragm displacement limits are greater for the parabolic geometry than for a semi-circular geometry.
In order to take advantage of extended parabolic suspension displacement range, however, it is necessary to address undesirable deformation which becomes evident during downward motion of the diaphragm. Thus,
In contrast, and as shown in
The high/low ratio (between parabolas) should be kept to a minimum in order to limit suspension mass increase due to extra material, but, obviously, cannot be equal to or lower than 1:1. In practice, a high/low ratio of 1.2:1 (between the two parabola heights) is adequate/preferred.
The method of designing the roll suspension 16 will now be described with reference to
An advantage of roll suspensions embodying the present invention, in which the profile varies continuously as opposed to uniform sections separated by peaked or notched sections, and transitions are smooth without sharp corners or abrupt changes, stress concentrations are substantially avoided with a consequent reduction in buckling/wrinkling.
To maintain target excursion for a given width of the roll suspension, cross-section of the lowest part of the roll must be a non-circular conic section, preferably parabolic (either a single parabola or a combination of parabolic arches joined by the radius on top) with sufficient length; then the peaks of continuously variable shape are added. This is in contrast to starting with the desired profile and adding notches or valleys, which will cut into desired excursion.
Although embodiments of the invention have been described and illustrated in detail, it is to be clearly understood that the same are by way of illustration and example only and not to be taken by way of limitation, the scope of the present invention being limited only by the appended claims.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
3676722 | Schafft | Jul 1972 | A |
3997023 | White | Dec 1976 | A |
D357480 | Lumsden | Apr 1995 | S |
5734132 | Proni | Mar 1998 | A |
6224801 | Mango, III | May 2001 | B1 |
6305491 | Iwasa et al. | Oct 2001 | B2 |
6611604 | Irby | Aug 2003 | B1 |
6697496 | Frasl | Feb 2004 | B2 |
6725967 | Hlibowicki | Apr 2004 | B2 |
6851513 | Stead et al. | Feb 2005 | B2 |
6889796 | Pocock et al. | May 2005 | B2 |
7054459 | Kuze et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
7174990 | Stead et al. | Feb 2007 | B2 |
7275620 | Diedrich et al. | Oct 2007 | B1 |
7397927 | Pircaro et al. | Jul 2008 | B2 |
7438155 | Stead et al. | Oct 2008 | B2 |
20030228027 | Czerwinski | Dec 2003 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20110164782 A1 | Jul 2011 | US |