Closed Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 16 to 26 of 26

Reload Thread: Designing your own motor

  1. #16
    *Ace*'s Avatar
    *Ace* is offline Subwooferologist

    Threadstarter


    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    576
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    65 Post(s)

    Re: Designing your own motor

    Quote Originally Posted by sundownz View Post
    Cheapest FEA software you will get for loudspeaker design :

    http://www.dyneanalytics.com/

    Very good bang for buck on it.

    Thank you very much!! Would you be able to make any additional comments or tips about motor design? If not I understand because I'm sure that might be considered "trade secrets".

    Thanks for you help so far



    2014 Jeep Patriot FDII
    Stock everything




  2. #17
    SPLaudio's Avatar
    SPLaudio is offline CarAudio.com Veteran



    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    upstate ny
    Posts
    6,603
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    713 Post(s)

    Re: Designing your own motor

    your best bet is to get online and read about how a motor works as much as you can.
    a tc9 is a very basic but good motor design that has been used for sq-spl depending on the soft parts used. tc was a build house many yrs ago that did very well why there is sooo many motors out there. most all the tc motors have been copied and different features added. most motors use 1010 steel which is cheap and very magnetic and good motors use y35 for slugs..




  3. #18
    *Ace*'s Avatar
    *Ace* is offline Subwooferologist

    Threadstarter


    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    576
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    65 Post(s)

    Re: Designing your own motor

    Have been doing a bunch of reading and got my quote for the MoTIV software. Does anyone know any good software for simulating soft parts. On one of his website, Dan Wiggins says he uses Calculix and IMPACT. Does anyone have any experience with these two programs (SPLaudio, sundownz)?

    Edit: Also sundownz, do you know when DYNE analytics will have their VIBRAT and Coil Designer programs ready? Thanks



    2014 Jeep Patriot FDII
    Stock everything

  4. #19
    *Ace*'s Avatar
    *Ace* is offline Subwooferologist

    Threadstarter


    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    576
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    65 Post(s)

    Re: Designing your own motor

    Ok this question is more for Jacob and other manufacturers. I know you guys are busy but it would definitely be appreciated. If anyone else knows the answer, please chime in.

    So from what I understand after doing some more reading (and correct me if I'm wrong), the T/S parameters of a subwoofer really aren't as important as people make them out to be in a sense. What I mean is that the T/S parameters will only tell you what kind of enclosure you will need to build for a given frequency response, nothing else. They won't tell you that sub "A" is better than sub "B" without knowing what you are trying to achieve. So when designing a subwoofer the first thing you would need to decide is what kind of application you want your sub to play well in, or what "niche" you want to fill (it doesn't make sense to me to start designing something without knowing what you are trying to achieve with your product).

    So let's say you want to design a subwoofer that is suited for small ported enclosures only, with good low bass extension and with a flat as possible frequency response. Obviously I'm willing to sacrifice efficiency in this example. Do you guys first grab some enclosure software (or any software that models out frequency response for a given alignment), throw in some random T/S parameters and change them around until you find the correct values that give you the enclosure size and frequency response you want, or at least as close as possible to it? I just don't think it would be very cost effective to randomly put parts together, measure the T/S specs and pray that they match the design goals.

    If so, I would imagine you then start using FEA software to mess with different materials and quantities of them to find what combinations give you the T/S values that you need correct? The final step being that you know what combination of materials will give you the specs you want, so you then begin searching for suppliers that can provide those materials at your specifications?



    2014 Jeep Patriot FDII
    Stock everything

  5. #20
    Beatin''s Avatar
    Beatin' is offline CarAudio.com Elite



    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    986
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    568 Post(s)

    Re: Designing your own motor

    I was thinking about building my own subwoofer as well.

    My idea revolved around taking a dual 15" sealed box, cutting out the front panel, and putting in a massive rectangular woofer. The motor would be mounted within the box and the box would act as both the enclosure and basket.




  6. #21
    Electrodynamic's Avatar
    Electrodynamic is offline Knows nothing



    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Mooresville, NC
    Age
    34
    Posts
    2,071
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    70 Post(s)

    Re: Designing your own motor

    Quote Originally Posted by *Ace* View Post
    So from what I understand after doing some more reading (and correct me if I'm wrong), the T/S parameters of a subwoofer really aren't as important as people make them out to be in a sense. What I mean is that the T/S parameters will only tell you what kind of enclosure you will need to build for a given frequency response, nothing else. They won't tell you that sub "A" is better than sub "B" without knowing what you are trying to achieve. So when designing a subwoofer the first thing you would need to decide is what kind of application you want your sub to play well in, or what "niche" you want to fill (it doesn't make sense to me to start designing something without knowing what you are trying to achieve with your product).
    Yes. That is exactly where to start. You have to have a goal in mind to begin with.

    Quote Originally Posted by *Ace* View Post
    So let's say you want to design a subwoofer that is suited for small ported enclosures only, with good low bass extension and with a flat as possible frequency response. Obviously I'm willing to sacrifice efficiency in this example. Do you guys first grab some enclosure software (or any software that models out frequency response for a given alignment), throw in some random T/S parameters and change them around until you find the correct values that give you the enclosure size and frequency response you want, or at least as close as possible to it? I just don't think it would be very cost effective to randomly put parts together, measure the T/S specs and pray that they match the design goals.
    You actually modify the motor and compliance to achieve the desired result. Moving mass stays the same as what you specify it as (you input non-coil moving mass as your coil has a specific mass). You then change the motor to affect the performance of the subwoofer as a whole and, of course, as part of the system.

    Quote Originally Posted by *Ace* View Post
    If so, I would imagine you then start using FEA software to mess with different materials and quantities of them to find what combinations give you the T/S values that you need correct? The final step being that you know what combination of materials will give you the specs you want, so you then begin searching for suppliers that can provide those materials at your specifications?
    With motors, yes. With soft parts, no. Not only do the materials have different effects on performance but so does the shape and size of the materials. If you wanted to get into designing your own spider(s) and surround(s) and you have the funds to support the cost of the software go ahead and do it. However, there are people out there (Red Rock Acoustics has a spider design service) that can do whatever you want for a nominal charge.



    Electrodynamic
    "On a long enough timeline, the survival rate of everyone drops to zero."
    Owner Stereo Integrity
    Co-owner Obsidian Car Audio
    Associate Sundown Audio
    Simon Eichenberger is my hero
    Power handling is not a power requirement! Don't install suckage!

  7. #22
    SPLaudio's Avatar
    SPLaudio is offline CarAudio.com Veteran



    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    upstate ny
    Posts
    6,603
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    713 Post(s)

    Re: Designing your own motor

    ^ Nick has no clue ;p




  8. Likes Electrodynamic liked this post
  9. #23
    *Ace*'s Avatar
    *Ace* is offline Subwooferologist

    Threadstarter


    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    576
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    65 Post(s)

    Re: Designing your own motor

    Quote Originally Posted by Electrodynamic View Post
    You actually modify the motor and compliance to achieve the desired result. Moving mass stays the same as what you specify it as (you input non-coil moving mass as your coil has a specific mass). You then change the motor to affect the performance of the subwoofer as a whole and, of course, as part of the system.
    This part I'm a little confused about, and maybe it's because I didn't word my question very well so let me try again. I know you have to modify the motor and compliance to get the parameters you want, but my question is, how do you know what parameters you want in the first place? We'll go with my previous example again. I want to design a 12" subwoofer that is suited for ported enclosures only, has good low end extension, and doesn't require as large an enclosure as some other drivers of the same size. Well how do I know what is required for a subwoofer to fit those specifications? The T/S parameters of a subwoofer would tell us if it's capable of doing the above, correct? And if so, well, what are those T/S specs? Is the Qts .56 or .29? Is the Fs 39Hz or 23Hz? Is the Cms .23 or .78? I'm guessing the only way to know is to take some enclosure software and enter your own custom parameters and model them out. First start by making the Qts .33, the Fs 28Hz, the Vas 10l, etc. and then model that up in your software and see if the frequency response graph is showing the results you are aiming for and if it calls for the same enclosure size that you want to use. If it doesn't, change the parameters again until you find something that does model up to what your goal is. I understand you still have to do real world testing to make sure you like the sound etc, but this would be an efficient way of pointing out the right direction correct? Does this method sound correct or no? If not, what is the correct method?

    I'm not sure if you use MoTIV or not, but I read the thread Dan Wiggins and Kevin Haskins made on the walk through of designing a 5.25" midwoofer motor. In a nutshell Dan asked Kevin for the typical box Kevin would like to use for the mid woofer, and what kind of frequency response he would like. Kevin then modeled up some T/S specs on some software (looked like enclosure modeling software) and then gave those T/S specs to Dan, and the enclosure size he wanted to use. That thread is why I figured I needed to know what T/S specs I wanted before I even attempt to design anything. I just want to know, how do I find out what specs I need for my goal.

    With motors, yes. With soft parts, no. Not only do the materials have different effects on performance but so does the shape and size of the materials. If you wanted to get into designing your own spider(s) and surround(s) and you have the funds to support the cost of the software go ahead and do it. However, there are people out there (Red Rock Acoustics has a spider design service) that can do whatever you want for a nominal charge.
    Yes I have visited the Red Rock Acoustics site and saw that they have many different FEA tools for designing speakers. I haven't gotten a quote on any of their software though.

    So most manufactorers don't use FEA for the soft parts? When you started out, did you just slap some random soft parts on, measure the T/S specs, and order new ones based on the results you got until it was perfect? That sounds like a lot of money and time when you could just enter the specs of known materials for soft parts, model them up in FEA and have the FEA software results show you what the final Cms, Qms, etc. would be without actually having to buy any soft parts at all. But then again, as I have come to find out, FEA software is EXPENSIVE, and maybe it would be cheaper to buy random soft parts and take measurements until it's perfected.

    And thanks again for answering my questions It is VERY much appreciated



    2014 Jeep Patriot FDII
    Stock everything

  10. #24
    sundownz's Avatar
    sundownz is offline Supporting Vendor sundownz is a Supporting Member of the forum!

    sundownz is a Supporting Vendor of the forum!

    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    11,051
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    303 Post(s)

    Re: Designing your own motor

    FEA is a great starting point and a great tool to start the development brand new parts (especially their non-linear behavior, naturally); but nothing beats having your hands on it to dial it in.

    At a certain point after handling 1000s of different parts you can also "just know" what will work for many applications... many of us that have been in it for a while can push on a cone and get a close guess of the CMS of a driver. Nick and I were talking the other day and we can guess Qts and Fs of a sub pretty quickly simply looking at BL^2/RE and knowing what we typically use for cones and spider stiffness on a given power level driver -- becomes pretty natural.

    Taking a good look at a spider we can also tell roughly if it has the throw we need or not; same goes for a surround (we have formulas on hand to calculate both manually as well).

    In any ideal world you would simulate everything in FEA before getting a prototype; but in reality that is pretty uncommon in smaller companies as many FEA packages can run $20-30k (DYNE MoTIV is the first really affordable / good and intuitive program for motors). You must also know that you don't always get the spec exact when you produce a part as well -- often having to tweak material to hit the FEA targets as all that data still goes through human beings and often a language barrier -- so hands-on tweaking is still VERY critical. There is also the invaluable Klippel testing that you can get from a real prototype to confirm any simulations / expectations.

    Also; if you designed by WinISD type graphs you'd see people make high VAS / Low Fs drivers for SPL *laughs* WinISD tends to show a MASSIVE peak in the 40s-50s with one of those in a small ported box. So there is also a degree of knowing what happens in reality vs. modelling when it comes to T/S goals. But to answer your question here at the end; we do have an idea of what T/S we want in mind before going into a project but often times with experience it doesn't take much tweaking to get there as you'll already have a good idea of what needs to be done. Typically as designers we also talk more in terms of CMS, MMS, and BL (BL^2/RE) rather than extrapolated spec like Qts, Qes, VAS, etc.




  11. #25
    ciaonzo's Avatar
    ciaonzo is offline TheContinental



    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    WI
    Age
    39
    Posts
    9,235
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    549 Post(s)

    Re: Designing your own motor

    Quote Originally Posted by sundownz View Post
    FEA is a great starting point and a great tool to start the development brand new parts (especially their non-linear behavior, naturally); but nothing beats having your hands on it to dial it in.

    At a certain point after handling 1000s of different parts you can also "just know" what will work for many applications... many of us that have been in it for a while can push on a cone and get a close guess of the CMS of a driver. Nick and I were talking the other day and we can guess Qts and Fs of a sub pretty quickly simply looking at BL^2/RE and knowing what we typically use for cones and spider stiffness on a given power level driver -- becomes pretty natural.

    Taking a good look at a spider we can also tell roughly if it has the throw we need or not; same goes for a surround (we have formulas on hand to calculate both manually as well).

    In any ideal world you would simulate everything in FEA before getting a prototype; but in reality that is pretty uncommon in smaller companies as many FEA packages can run $20-30k (DYNE MoTIV is the first really affordable / good and intuitive program for motors). You must also know that you don't always get the spec exact when you produce a part as well -- often having to tweak material to hit the FEA targets as all that data still goes through human beings and often a language barrier -- so hands-on tweaking is still VERY critical. There is also the invaluable Klippel testing that you can get from a real prototype to confirm any simulations / expectations.

    Also; if you designed by WinISD type graphs you'd see people make high VAS / Low Fs drivers for SPL *laughs* WinISD tends to show a MASSIVE peak in the 40s-50s with one of those in a small ported box. So there is also a degree of knowing what happens in reality vs. modelling when it comes to T/S goals. But to answer your question here at the end; we do have an idea of what T/S we want in mind before going into a project but often times with experience it doesn't take much tweaking to get there as you'll already have a good idea of what needs to be done. Typically as designers we also talk more in terms of CMS, MMS, and BL (BL^2/RE) rather than extrapolated spec like Qts, Qes, VAS, etc.
    Nailed it. Mass, compliance, and force.

    Speaking of building drivers, have you received my last couple emails?



    Quote Originally Posted by audioholic View Post
    Saying "clipping doesn't kill speakers" is a half-truth at best. Technically no, clipping itself does not hurt the speaker. But in clipping your amp, you can easily create a situation that WILL kill the speaker. Was the squared waveform the DIRECT cause of the failure? No. In the end, the answer is, always has been, and can only be... heat kills speakers. BUT, clipping increases heat generation, sometimes by a drastic amount. So to start a thread simply to state that clipping does not hurt speakers is, again, a half-truth at best.

  12. #26
    *Ace*'s Avatar
    *Ace* is offline Subwooferologist

    Threadstarter


    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    576
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    65 Post(s)

    Re: Designing your own motor

    Quote Originally Posted by sundownz View Post
    Typically as designers we also talk more in terms of CMS, MMS, and BL (BL^2/RE) rather than extrapolated spec like Qts, Qes, VAS, etc
    Quote Originally Posted by ciaonzo View Post
    Nailed it. Mass, compliance, and force.
    Ok this makes sense to me I think. Let me know if the following is right. I know enclosure specs also play a part, but I mean in general.

    1) Mass + Compliance will give me my Fs value. A speaker with a lower Fs usually will have better low end extension with everything else being equal. So if I want good low end extension in my subwoofer, I will be messing with it's compliance and mass right?

    2) The compliance of a sub will also tell me two things. One is how large of an enclosure I need. The more compliant the driver is, the larger the enclosure needed. Second, the more compliant the driver is, the better low end extension it'll have.

    3) Finally, BL and MMS are going to tell me what the sensitivity of the driver will be right? Increase MMS and decrease BL and efficiency drops. Increase BL and decrease MMS and efficiency increases.

    So BL^2/Re, MMS, and CMS are the three parameters I will be messing with/worried about the most to achieve my driver goals? Let me know if I misunderstood or got any of the above wrong.

    Thanks guys
    Last edited by *Ace*; 01-30-2013 at 03:14 AM.



    2014 Jeep Patriot FDII
    Stock everything

Closed Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Similar Threads

  1. Build your own TC-7's: motors, cones, spiders, baskets, coils
    By DarkScorpion in forum Miscellaneous Car Audio Classifieds
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 05-22-2011, 03:47 PM
  2. If you could design your own
    By Kountz430 in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-07-2009, 11:10 AM
  3. who has built your own motor...
    By Polecat in forum Car Performance and Repair
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 04-02-2005, 06:25 PM
  4. Building your Own Stuff
    By Plater in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-05-2002, 04:12 PM
  5. questions about making your own box...
    By m_mh in forum Subwoofers
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-23-2002, 10:55 PM

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
1e2 Forum