Lets see..Short stroke does not lower Qts just as high stroke does not always mean low motor force with high Qts.
To those of you looking at the post I am quoting above, please do not look at it as everything contained in the paragraph above is false if you are looking for information on car audio subwoofers. Jim is right - motor force is not the most important thing to look at! With small signal parameters high BL can be achieved in multiple ways. However, a very strong motor is not desired and/or wanted depending on the application. For instance, you can easily over-motor a driver to be used in sealed applications. The result will be a driver that has an F3 of 65 Hz in the target size enclosure...aka it won't play low. Will it be loud at 70 or 80 Hz? It could, but it will also have such anemic bottom end that almost 100% of customers will hate it.
And a more compliant (or "looser") suspension will result in a lower Fs.
"Tighten"ing the suspension, or making it less compliant, will change the Qt more than any effects of adding mass will have on the suspension. That is, of course, unless you're talking about increasing the moving mass by 2x with a compliant suspension to begin with [note that is a LOT of mass - as in going from an Mms of 250g to 500g!]. Everything is within limits, not definite.
Once again this is wrong.
Loudspeaker design is all about compromises. And have you ever seen a neo motor? They are tiny in comparison yet still offer very solid motor force. The size of a motor is NOT an indicator of how well the driver will perform in every application. Know and understand what you want and go from there. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif
Does Low xmax = low Qts? No. Didn't mean it that way. Does using a shorter coil winding(less xmax) given all else is the same = more motor force, and thus a lower Qts? Yup!
Next...
Motor force isn't everyhing because some apps don't require alot? Yea, CAN be true. And then you go on to say that a sealed box sub will have an F3 of like 50-60hz lol...mhmm...Let's look at an example of a sealed box sub: RE XXX. It is a LARGE motor. The compromise here is that it requires alot of backbone to achieve a high enough efficiency with it's LARGE top plate and little coil(even though it's not necesasrily "efficient"). This sub still has a Q that is up there. In this case the sub does not have an F3 of 60 hz sir!
About me saying that a looser suspension raises fs, it happens, common mistake, i accidentally reversed that as i replied quickly.
Adding mass really does not take a whole lot to alter the Q and Fs.
Last, yea, who hasn't heard of Neo? What does this have to do with anything I said? They require little magnetic material to saturate a given top plate size, and weigh a bit less. Sooo? Oh, so when i was talking about the size of the motor, you couldn't realize that i was talking about motor force? It should have been obvious.
Driver design is all about compromises? Did you not read when I wrote that in my reply? Next time read the whole thing.
Is driver force the most important? Well, it isn't going to be necessary to have a NEO motor as strong as the DDz on a lower power handling sub that is designed for SQ, but if you are into SPL daily applications that get loud and produce alot of SPL, motor force is a great thing. Even if you don't need to have all the potential force from a large motor, you could make it a looser gap motor, and or use a coil that isn't very beefy and will not yield a whole lot of inductance. This has been done with alot of subwoofers out there, SQ, SQL, and even SPL subwoofers can benefit from a looser gap "tolorance" reducing power compression aswell.