Loudpseakers
11490210 · 2022-11-01
Assignee
Inventors
Cpc classification
H04R2209/026
ELECTRICITY
H04R2499/11
ELECTRICITY
International classification
H04R1/28
ELECTRICITY
Abstract
A loudspeaker comprising two acoustic diaphragms mounted to face in axially-opposed directions, two voice coils each having an axis and an axial length and being configured to reciprocate along its axis to drive one of the diaphragms, the axes being substantially parallel and both axes passing through both diaphragms, and at least one magnet forming part of a chassis assembly configured to provide two axially-extending gaps, one for each of the voice coils to reciprocate within, wherein the at least one magnet and the chassis assembly are adapted so that magnetic flux flows across the gaps in opposite directions, and wherein when in use the diaphragms are at their predetermined maximum negative excursions the voice coils overlap in the axial direction by between 10% and 90% of their average axial length, and wherein when in use the diaphragms are in a relaxed position, between their maximum negative and positive excursions, the voice coils do not overlap in the axial direction.
Claims
1. A loudspeaker comprising two acoustic diaphragms mounted to face in axially-opposed directions, two voice coils each having an axis and an axial length and being configured to reciprocate along its axis to drive one of the diaphragms, the axes being substantially parallel and both axes passing through both diaphragms, and at least one magnet forming part of a chassis assembly configured to provide two axially-extending gaps, one for each of the voice coils to reciprocate within, wherein the at least one magnet and the chassis assembly are adapted so that magnetic flux flows across the gaps in opposite directions, wherein the chassis assembly further comprises a spacer formed of a non-magnetic, conductive material shaped so as to extend axially and positioned so as to separate the two axially-extending magnetic gaps and wherein when in use the diaphragms are at their predetermined maximum negative excursions the voice coils overlap in the axial direction by between 50% and 90% of their average axial length, and wherein when in use the diaphragms are in a relaxed position, between their maximum negative and positive excursions, the voice coils do not overlap in the axial direction.
2. The loudspeaker according to claim 1 in which the axes are coaxial.
3. The loudspeaker according to claim 1 in which the two voice coils have the same axial length.
4. The loudspeaker according to claim 1 in which the mass of the diaphragm facing in one direction and the voice coil associated therewith is substantially the same as the mass of the diaphragm facing in the other direction and the voice coil associated therewith.
5. The loudspeaker according to claim 1 comprising a single magnet.
6. The loudspeaker according to claim 5 in which the magnet is shaped as a closed loop and extends axially so as to surround the two axially-extending magnetic gaps.
7. The loudspeaker according to claim 5 in which the magnet extends axially and is surrounded by the two axially-extending magnetic gaps.
8. The loudspeaker according to claim 1 comprising at least two magnets.
9. The loudspeaker according to claim 1 in which the chassis assembly comprises a yoke.
10. The loudspeaker according to claim 1 in which when in use the diaphragms move between their relaxed positions and their predetermined maximum negative excursions the voice coils do not overlap in the axial direction for the first 50% of that movement.
11. The loudspeaker according to claim 10 in which the voice coils do not overlap in the axial direction for the first 30% of their movement between the relaxed positions and their predetermined maximum negative excursions.
12. The loudspeaker according to claim 1 in which the relaxed position of one or both voice coils is located midway between its/their maximum negative and positive excursions.
Description
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
(1) The invention will now be described by way of example and with reference to the accompanying figures, in which;
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE EMBODIMENTS
(7)
(8) The coil length L1 and the thickness of the plate determine the maximum excursion of the motor system. The force generated by the motor system for each unit electrical current flowing in the coil (the BL) is constant when the coil is fully inside the gap. When the coil offset is ½ L1 the BL will drop to around 50% and this is typically the approximate maximum excursion (E1) of the motor system.
(9) The total motor-system height (H1) is
H1=BP1+FP1+C1
(10) C1 is the distance between the gap and the yoke into which for the voice coil can move during usage. According to
(11)
(12) A higher clearance margin provides a better guarantee that a collision won't occur, but this is at the expense of motor system compactness. Typical clearance margins are in the range of 10% to 50% depending on the application and required compactness of the loudspeaker driver.
(13) Very often the thickness (BP1) of the back plate 10 and the thickness (FP1) of the front plate 8 will be the same or very close to the same. This is because both plates carry the magnetic flux in a similar orientation and therefore will have similar saturation when they are the same thickness (balancing saturation against steel quantity is the key aspect of motor system cost and performance optimisation).
(14) Putting this all together, for two drivers placed back-to-back the total height of the two motor systems is approximately
(15)
(16)
(17) Normally the aim is for the motor strength (BL) of both voice coils 26, 28 to be identical and also for the maximum excursion of both voice coils to be identical. Commonly the thickness FP1, FP2 of both end plates 38, 40 will be the same. The lengths L1, L2 of both coils 26, 28 will normally be the same. Under these conditions the clearances for the two coils will be the same. Under these conditions the total thickness (height in the drawing) of the dual motor system 11 is
(18)
(19) i.e. half of the conventional motor system thickness/height.
(20) At maximum negative excursion both coils 26, 28 will be displaced by approximately ½L1+½FP as shown in
(21) Assuming that the coil lengths L1, L2 are the same, and the end plate thicknesses FP1, FP2 are the same, the overlap (OL) at this coil position is given by
(22)
(23) From this it is obvious that the overlap can be expressed as a percentage of the voice coil length
(24)
(25) Given typical clearance margins, the maximum voice coil overlap is between 50% and 90%.
(26) Since one magnet ring 22 is used for both magnetic gaps 42, 44 it is usually necessary to use a large volume of magnet 22 than with a typical single motor system. In some cases this might mean that the clearance margin is greater than normal to allow the thickness of the magnet ring 22 to be as large as possible. This is clearly a balance between the motor-system strength and the motor-system thickness that the designer must fine tune. Even in this situation the maximum overlap of the coils would be significant and is likely to be at least 10% and probably more than 25%.
(27) The magnetic field orientation in the two magnetic gaps 42, 44 is opposite. Typically this motor system will be required to deliver the same force on both coils 26, 28 but in opposite directions in order to create a “reaction-force cancelling” arrangement and therefore it will be necessary to connect one of the coils in the reverse direction.
(28) It's advantageous if both coils 26, 28 have the same motor-strength. This is relatively easily achieved since both magnetic gaps 42, 44 are in a series magnetic connection and the same magnetic field passes through both. Since approximately the same magnetic flux passes radially through both magnetic gaps 42, 44, the magnetic flux density in each magnetic gap is approximately proportional to the voice coil diameter. Therefore the flux density experienced by the smaller diameter voice coil 28 will be higher. However, this effect is balanced by the lower coil circumference of the smaller diameter voice coil 28 and as a result it is fairly easy to achieve approximately the same motor-strength BL on both coils 26, 28 (particularly as there are many geometric and coil parameters that can be adjusted to minimise the differences).
(29) In some cases it may not be possible or desirable to achieve the same motor strength. In this case it might be advantageous to drive the two coils 26, 28 with different signals in order to still achieve approximate reaction-force cancellation.
(30) It is possible that this motor system arrangement may have advantages when not used in a reaction force cancelling mode, where there is no particular relationship between the signals in the two coils. In this case the compactness and the overlap of the voice coils may still be advantageous.
(31)
(32) It will of course be understood that many variations may be made to the above-described embodiment without departing from the scope of the present invention. For example, the central cylindrical part of the yoke may be solid as shown in
(33) Where different variations or alternative arrangements are described above, it should be understood that embodiments of the invention may incorporate such variations and/or alternatives in any suitable combination.