Talk:Damping factor

what would be an example of a large damping factor and a small one?
Thanks for any info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.229.165 (talk) 17:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Earlier talk archived at:
 * Talk:Damping factor/archive1
 * Talk:Damping factor/archive2

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


 * That's because the links are wrong. The first has a redirect, but they should correctly read:
 * Talk:Damping factor/Archive 1
 * Talk:Damping factor/Archive 2
 * 86.174.152.128 (talk) 12:02, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

archiving is nonsense
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)

Critical damping of loudspeakers
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)

Large Damping Factor is desirable for audio amplifiers
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)
 * 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  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)