4.5 Article

Electroacoustic absorbers: Bridging the gap between shunt loudspeakers and active sound absorption

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE ACOUSTICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA
卷 129, 期 5, 页码 2968-2978

出版社

ACOUSTICAL SOC AMER AMER INST PHYSICS
DOI: 10.1121/1.3569707

关键词

-

资金

  1. Swiss National Science Foundation [200021-116977]
  2. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [200021-116977] Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The acoustic impedance at the diaphragm of an electroacoustic transducer can be varied using a range of basic electrical control strategies, amongst which are electrical shunt circuits. These passive shunt techniques are compared to active acoustic feedback techniques for controlling the acoustic impedance of an electroacoustic transducer. The formulation of feedback-based acoustic impedance control reveals formal analogies with shunt strategies, and highlights an original method for synthesizing electric networks (shunts) with positive or negative components, bridging the gap between passive and active acoustic impedance control. This paper describes the theory unifying all these passive and active acoustic impedance control strategies, introducing the concept of electroacoustic absorbers. The equivalence between shunts and active control is first formalized through the introduction of a one-degree-of-freedom acoustic resonator accounting for both electric shunts and acoustic feedbacks. Conversely, electric networks mimicking the performances of active feedback techniques are introduced, identifying shunts with active impedance control. Simulated acoustic performances are presented, with an emphasis on formal analogies between the different control techniques. Examples of electric shunts are proposed for active sound absorption. Experimental assessments are then presented, and the paper concludes with a general discussion on the concept and potential improvements. (C) 2011 Acoustical Society of America. [DOI:10.1121/1.3569707]

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据