dlaloum wrote:...yes the timecode is min:sec and each dot is a 96kHz sample.
Ahhh I was not aware that the loafer requirement was for a low F pulse... So I simply went to a recorded track, searched for a click and zoomed in on it.
Sounds like I should search for a "pop" rather than a click....
Thanks, so indeed that is looking at a high frequency, c 14kHz period, resonant system. Whereas loafer is all about low frequency mechanics and stability, so need to look at a far far longer time period, a factor of about 3000 times slower for loafer !
Should be OK to use any displacement, click, pop, touchdown. The secret is to look at the appropriate timescale. And if you do look at equivalent low frequency transient response, you can cross-check your low frequency resonant measurement, DL. 4.8Hz IIRC. This might simply explain the discrepancy between your and Thomas_A's indirect measurement of compliance@10Hz, or might confirm your own, DL.
Meantime, as to the very interesting high frequency resonant system, c 14kHz. I suppose the obvious one, which got overlooked yesterday, is the LCR electrical resonance in MMs conventionally loaded. In which case, where is the mechanical resonant response.............??
Even at 96kHz sampling, it's not easy to see detail in a single capture at these frequencies. Perhaps the reason that capture looks a bit abnormal or unhealthy is that it is not monotonic, ie there is more than one resonant response combined in there ? BUT you have capability to sample at 192kHz, DL, and that would give about 10 samples per cycle, and would likely answer whether the response is monotonic. If it is monotonic, where is the other resonance ?
What one is doing here is looking at the time domain consequences of the LCR and mechanical resonant systems, of course. It sort of helps to visualise things this way, IMO. Time domain seems far more human somehow.