(19)
(11)EP 2 114 091 B1

(12)EUROPEAN PATENT SPECIFICATION

(45)Mention of the grant of the patent:
08.08.2018 Bulletin 2018/32

(21)Application number: 09158854.1

(22)Date of filing:  27.04.2009
(51)Int. Cl.: 
H04R 3/00  (2006.01)

(54)

Load detection

Lasterkennung

Détection de charge


(84)Designated Contracting States:
AT BE BG CH CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GB GR HR HU IE IS IT LI LT LU LV MC MK MT NL NO PL PT RO SE SI SK TR

(30)Priority: 28.04.2008 EP 08008141

(43)Date of publication of application:
04.11.2009 Bulletin 2009/45

(73)Proprietor: Harman Becker Automotive Systems GmbH
76307 Karlsbad (DE)

(72)Inventors:
  • Woelfl, Genaro
    94315 Straubing (DE)
  • Knott, Arnold
    94336 Hunderdorf (DE)
  • Gueth, Michael
    99848 Kaelberfeld (DE)

(74)Representative: Westphal, Mussgnug & Partner Patentanwälte mbB 
Werinherstrasse 79
81541 München
81541 München (DE)


(56)References cited: : 
EP-A- 1 995 872
DE-A1- 19 612 891
US-A1- 2007 057 720
EP-A1- 2 120 485
DE-C1- 19 712 571
  
      
    Note: Within nine months from the publication of the mention of the grant of the European patent, any person may give notice to the European Patent Office of opposition to the European patent granted. Notice of opposition shall be filed in a written reasoned statement. It shall not be deemed to have been filed until the opposition fee has been paid. (Art. 99(1) European Patent Convention).


    Description

    BACKGROUND


    1. Field of Technology



    [0001] The invention relates to a load detection arrangement for a load comprising multiple frequency-dependant sub-loads and a method of evaluating a load comprising multiple frequency-dependant sub-loads.

    2. Related Art



    [0002] During audio system assembly in car manufacture lines and audio system checks included in car service checks in repair shops, it is necessary to test the interconnection between the amplifier and loudspeakers of the audio system in order to ensure the quality of the audio system. Various wiring problems can be experienced including failure to properly join the harness wiring to the loudspeaker terminals, bent or broken terminals, and pinched or broken wires in the harness.

    [0003] Existing speaker detection methods include what is known as a speaker walk-around test, wherein the audio system is placed into a test mode in which it sequentially sends an output audio signal individually to each loudspeaker while a person listens to determine if proper sound comes from each loudspeaker. However, this procedure is time consuming and it is difficult for the listener to detect a single loudspeaker in the presence of noise.

    [0004] The publication US 2007/0057720 A1 describes a system for detecting the impedance of an output load coupled to a digital amplifier and compensating for changes in the response of the amplifier.

    [0005] Publication DE 196 12 891 A1 discloses a method for testing of one or more usually coupled loads each having a frequency-dependent impedance.

    [0006] Further, publication EP 1 995 872 A1 discloses circuit for detecting the load impedance of a load connected to an amplifier, whereby the circuit comprises a signal generator providing a test signal of a defined bandwidth to the first terminal of the load impedance, and whereby an energy-storing element is connected to a second terminal of the load impedance and provides an output signal which is compared with the reference.

    [0007] Publication DE 197 12 571 C1 describes an amplifier for automotive applications also comprising a signal generator for providing a test signal for measuring the impedance of a load speaker connected to the amplifier.

    [0008] It is also known to employ each loudspeaker as a pick-up or microphone to generate a signal for sensing the presence of a properly connected loudspeaker. By forcibly moving a loudspeaker cone, a voltage is created across the loudspeaker. But since a loudspeaker is not optimized to perform as a pick-up, a high sound-pressure level is required to generate a detectible signal, e.g., by slamming a door. However, this method is also time consuming and is not reliable since it is difficult to identify the output signal of a particular loudspeaker under investigation since woofers, midrange speakers, and tweeters are commonly coupled to each other by a cross-over network.

    [0009] Furthermore, the prior art methods are not well adapted for detecting intermittent speaker connection problems after a vehicle is put into service since they require interaction by a human test operator.

    [0010] Therefore, there is any need for an arrangement and a method for automatically detecting faults of different loudspeakers of a loudspeaker system.

    SUMMARY



    [0011] A load detection arrangement for a load comprising multiple frequency-dependant sub-loads is disclosed. The arrangement comprises: an impedance measuring unit that is connected to the load and adapted to measure a representation of the impedance characteristic of the load; an evaluation unit adapted for calculating a quantity representing the shape of the impedance characteristic of the load, the quantity being insusceptible to frequency independent errors and/or tolerances; a memory unit in which one or more representations of the quantity representing the shape of the impedance characteristic of the load resulting from different configurations of the sub-loads are stored; and a comparison unit that is connected to the evaluation unit to receive a representation of the shape of the currently measured impedance characteristic of the load and to the memory unit to receive the stored representations. The comparison unit is configured to compare the measured representation of the shape with each one of the stored representations and, in case that the measured representation matches a stored representation, to identify the configuration of the sub-loads within the load.

    BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS



    [0012] The invention can be better understood with reference to the following drawings and description. The components in the figures are not necessarily to scale, instead emphasis being placed upon illustrating the principles of the invention. Moreover, in the figures, like reference numerals designate corresponding parts. In the drawings:

    FIG. 1 is a block diagram illustrating a signal generator having a load comprising parallel connected sub-loads;

    FIG. 2 is a block diagram illustrating an audio system having a load comprising serial connected sub-loads;

    FIG. 3 is a block diagram of a novel load detection arrangement using a broadband test signal;

    FIG. 4 is a block diagram of a novel load detection arrangement using a sequence of narrowband test signals and a comparator;

    FIG. 5 is a block diagram of a novel load detection arrangement using a sequence of narrowband test signals and a peak detector;

    FIG. 6 is a diagram illustrating an exemplary load impedance curve over frequency;

    FIG. 7 is a flow chart of an example of a novel load detection method;

    FIG. 8 shows a truth table used for load detection in connection with the method illustrated in FIG. 7;

    FIG. 9 is a diagram illustrating an exemplary impedance-over-frequency curve for a tweeter including a series capacitor at different temperatures;

    FIG. 10 is a diagram illustrating an exemplary impedance-over-frequency curve for a midrange loudspeaker at different temperatures, the area between the curve and a base line being shaded;

    FIG. 11 is a diagram illustrating an exemplary impedance-over-frequency curve for a parallel circuit of the midrange loudspeaker and the tweeter including the series capacitor at different temperatures, the area between the curve and a base line being shaded;

    FIG. 12 is a diagram illustrating an exemplary impedance-over-frequency curve for a midrange loudspeaker at different temperatures similar to FIG. 10;

    FIG. 13 is a diagram illustrating an exemplary impedance-over-frequency curve for a parallel circuit of the midrange loudspeaker and the tweeter including the series capacitor at different temperatures similar to FIG. 11;

    FIG. 14 is a diagram illustrating the single frequency load detection method applied to an impedance plot of the midrange loudspeaker;

    FIG. 15 is a diagram illustrating the single frequency load detection method applied to an impedance plot of the parallel circuit of the midrange loudspeaker and the tweeter including the series capacitor;

    FIG. 16 is a diagram illustrating the maximum allowable tolerances including measurement errors in percent dependent on the load analysis used in order to ensure a reliable load detection;

    FIG. 17 is a diagram illustrating a test signal with a trapezoid shaped window; and

    FIG. 18 is a diagram illustrating a test signal with a sine shaped window.


    DETAILED DESCRIPTION



    [0013] FIG. 1 is a block diagram of an arrangement (e.g., an audio system) comprising a signal source 1 (e.g., an audio amplifier) supplying an electrical signal to a load 2 that comprises n sub-loads 2.1 to 2.n (e.g., loudspeakers) connected in parallel. Each one of the sub-loads 2.1 to 2.n has a frequency-dependant impedance characteristic Zi(f) with i = 1... n and f = frequency. The impedance Ztotal(f) of the load 2 is, accordingly,



    [0014] The arrangement shown in FIG. 2 differs from that shown in FIG. 1 only in that the n sub-loads 2.1 to 2.n of the load 2 are connected in series. The impedance Ztotal(f) of the load 2 is in the arrangement of FIG. 2, accordingly,



    [0015] Load 2 may also be a combination of series and parallel connected sub-loads as discussed below with reference to FIG. 3. The novel approach is able to detect in case of a parallel connection (FIG. 1) whether any of the sub-loads 2.1 to 2.n is missing (open) or not, and in case of a series connection (FIG 2) whether any of the sub-loads is shorted or not. In both cases, each of the sub-loads can be detected independent of all other loads. In case of parallel and series sub-loads (FIG. 3), the term "open" applies to sub-loads connected in parallel and "short circuit" applies to sub-loads in series.

    [0016] Referring to FIG. 3, the load 2 comprises, for example, four sub-loads 2.1 (e.g., a low-range loudspeaker), 2.2 (e.g., a capacitor), 2.3 (e.g., a mid-high-range loudspeaker), 2.4 (e.g., an inductance). Sub-loads 2.1 and 2.2 are connected in parallel as well as sub-loads 2.3 and 2.4 are connected in parallel. Furthermore, parallel connected sub-loads 2.1 and 2.2 and parallel connected sub-loads 2.3 and 2.4 are connected in series forming a kind of H-circuit which is represented by the load 2. This H-circuit is connected to an impedance measuring unit 3 and adapted to measure a representation of the impedance characteristic of the load 2. The impedance measuring unit 3 comprises in the present example a test signal source 4 providing test signal comprising, e.g., a multiplicity of simultaneously transmitted sinusoidal voltages each with a certain, e.g., the same, amplitude (or, alternatively, a broadband white noise signal). The impedance measuring unit 3 further comprises a Fast-Fourier transformation (FFT) unit 5 which performs a Fast-Fourier (FFT) on the current flowing through the load 2 in order to provide an impedance characteristic as an impedance curve over frequency. The impedance characteristic may be represented by at least two, e.g., 512 pairs of data words, one of the data words refers to a frequency value and the other to the respective impedance value. The measurement result (i.e. the impedance-over-frequency-curve) is used to calculate a quantity representing the shape of the impedance curve. Therefore, the measurement unit 3 comprises an evaluation unit that is configured to calculate a quantity representing the shape of the impedance characteristic of the load, whereby the quantity is insusceptible to frequency independent errors and/or tolerances. Such quantities may be, for example, the slope of the curve at given frequencies or the area between the curve and a threshold line defining a threshold impedance at a pre-defined frequency.

    [0017] In a memory unit 6 representations of the mentioned quantity representing the shape of the impedance characteristics of the load are stored. Each one of the stored quantities represents the shape of the impedance curve over frequency of the load 2 when at least a particular one of the sub-loads 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4 is in a fault condition. Assuming that each sub-load can be in one of three conditions, "ok", "open", and "short circuit" and having, in the exemplary arrangement of FIG. 3, four sub-loads, the number of representations of the quantity stored is 34 = 81. This number corresponds to 81 different configurations of the sub-loads within the load or to the so-called load situations including one representing a proper condition of the load 2. Accordingly, 80 representations of the shape-quantity (excluding the situation of a proper load) or 81 representations of the shape-quantity (including the situation of a proper load) may be stored in the memory unit 6. In order to get a fast result if the load is in a proper condition or in a fault condition the arrangement may first (or only) check if the shape-quantity representing a proper condition is met. In case it does not the sub-load being in a fault condition may be identified afterwards if desired.

    [0018] The arrangement of FIG. 3 further comprises a comparison unit 7 that is connected to the impedance measuring unit 3 (and thus to the evaluation unit) to receive a representation of the shape of the currently measured impedance characteristic of the load 2 and to the memory unit 6 to receive the stored representations. The comparison unit 7 compares the measured representation with each one of the stored shape-quantities and in case the measured representation matches one of the stored 80 representation corresponding to fault situations it distinctly identifies the sub-load or sub-loads being in a fault condition by the stored 80 representations. In case 81 representations are used it may also identify the proper-load situation. The results are provided by an output signal 8 identifying the sub-load or sub-loads being in a fault condition.

    [0019] In the exemplary arrangement shown in FIG. 3 the test signal comprises a multiplicity of simultaneously transmitted sinusoidal voltages. However, the multiplicity of sinusoidal voltages may be transmitted sequentially instead of simultaneously. Sequentially transmitted sinusoidal voltages are used in the arrangements shown in FIGS. 4 and 5.

    [0020] In the arrangement of FIG. 4, a sine wave generator 9 and an audio amplifier 10 together form the test signal source 4. The audio amplifier 10 may be the same used in the regular mode for amplifying the useful signals such as music or speech, and has a volume control line 11 to control the volume of a signal supplied to its input. In the test mode, the sine wave generator 9 is connected to this input to provide a sinusoidal signal with a certain frequency which is controllable by a signal on a frequency control line 12. The audio amplifier 10 provides a sinusoidal voltage to the load 2 via a current sensor 13 measuring the current flowing through the load 2. Instead of a current sensor a voltage sensor may be used in case that the test signal source provides a test current. A representation of the measured current is supplied to a comparator 14 that compares this representation with a threshold 15 representing a current threshold. The result of the comparison is supplied to a control logic 16 that is connected to the sine wave generator 9 and the audio amplifier 10 through the volume control line 11 and to the frequency control line 12 for providing the respective control signals.

    [0021] The control logic 16 controls the frequency and (through the amplifier gain also) the signal amplitude of the test signal. The current sensor 13 between the audio amplifier 10 and the load 2 which is a combination of the frequency dependent sub-loads 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4 measures the current that flows into the load 2 and the comparator 14 compares the measured current with the threshold 15. At each test frequency, the amplifier gain starts at a value where the load current is less then the threshold and is increased in steps that are sufficiently small with respect to the expected load variations for all possible load combinations. When the load current at the given frequency becomes higher than the current threshold for the first time, the corresponding impedance value can be calculated from the current threshold, the output amplitude of the sine wave generator 9 and the amplifier gain. For the following analysis the impedance value itself is not needed and the gain value is sufficient. The gain value for all other test frequencies is determined in the same way.

    [0022] The arrangement of FIG. 5 differs from that shown in FIG. 4 in that the comparator 14 in connection with threshold 15 is substituted by a peak detector 17. Here, the gain of the audio amplifier 10 does not need to be varied. Instead, the impedance of the load 2 is calculated from the sine wave generator output, the (constant) amplifier gain and the peak current determined by the peak detector 17.

    [0023] With reference to FIGS. 6 and 7, an example is discussed how the control logic 16 in the arrangement of FIG. 4 controls the process of identifying sub-loads being in a fault condition. FIG. 7 illustrates the algorithm that is used to analyze the load combinations of FIG.6. Tweeters and (bass-) midrange loudspeakers coupled by a passive crossover network are commonly used in multi-channel car audio systems. Commonly used amplifiers and loads, e.g., loudspeakers in connection with passive components such as inductors and capacitors, tend to have large tolerances as well as the measurement systems which are supposed to be low-cost.

    [0024] However, most of these tolerances are frequency independent so that the absolute impedance values measured may change but not the shape of the impedance curves. Accordingly, the shape of the curve can be used to differentiate all possible load combinations despite all frequency independent system tolerances. The shape may be, for example, characterized by the slope of the curve at given frequency values or by the area under the curve. By considering such characteristic values representing the shape of the impedance curve (but not the absolute impedance values) the load detection may be designed to be more robust against tolerances. The algorithm discussed with reference to FIG. 7 is explained as a first example that uses the lowest possible frequency resolution of only two test frequencies for impedance measurements. As the involved sub-loads show quite substantial variations in the shape of the impedance curve when one or more sub-loads are missing or in short circuit state, this resolution is sufficient in the present example. Accordingly, a representation of the shape of the curve is considered not the curve itself, i.e. not the absolute impedance values. Sub-load combinations of higher complexity may require the use of a considerably higher number of test frequencies.

    [0025] In the example of FIG. 7 based on the arrangement of FIG. 4, the rough shape of the impedance curve of FIG. 6 is used to analyze the load 2. The shape of the impedance curve is thereby roughly represented by the slope of the curve, whereby the slope is approximated by the difference between two impedance values Z(f1)-Z(f2). At first the required gain of the audio amplifier 10 is determined to get a load current higher than the current threshold at test frequency f1 which may be 20Hz. Therefore, the gain (Gain) which starts at a known value in order to result in a load current lower than the current threshold for all possible tolerances (StartGain) is increased in little steps. The gain increment depends on the gain resolution needed to differentiate all possible load combinations.

    [0026] Being beyond the MaxGain point (representing maximum gain) which has to be high enough to ensure that the current threshold can be reached for all possible sub-load combinations of interest at the given frequency (which in case of f1 is only the midrange including all tolerances) indicates that there is no midrange loudspeaker connected. Otherwise the result is a gain value that trips the current threshold comparator which then is stored in Gain_f1 and means at least the midrange loudspeaker is present. The gain value Gain_f1 is a representation of the first impedance value Z(f1). In any case the next step is to repeat the preceding procedure for the second test frequency f2 which may be 20kHz. When the current threshold has been reached in the first step the corresponding gain value can be used as the start value for the second test frequency f2. Otherwise the gain is set back to the originally gain StartGain. If no midrange loudspeaker is properly connected, there is the possibility to exceed the MaxGain again which indicates that the tweeter is also not connected.

    [0027] If the current threshold is reached, it indicates that the tweeter is connected only. If the midrange loudspeaker has been detected at frequency f1 the gain value which results in the load current to get higher then the current threshold for the first time at frequency f2 is stored in Gain_f2, which is a representation of the second impedance Z(f2). Following the above elaborated idea, the difference between Gain_f1 and Gain_f2 (representing the difference Z(f1)-Z(f2) being an approximation of the slope) is used to determine whether the tweeter is also connected. The midrange loudspeaker alone exhibits a big increase of impedance between frequencies f1 and f2 while the combination of midrange loudspeaker and tweeter shows only a small increase. If the impedance increase is higher then the detection threshold DetectionThreshold the tweeter is connected. The detection threshold has to take into account all frequency dependent impedance tolerances at frequencies f1 and f2 of the combination of the tweeter and the midrange loudspeaker.

    [0028] All decisions that have to be made during the analysis of the measurements for the load detection in this example are included in the truth table of FIG. 8. The truth table may be stored in a memory unit or, as in the present example, be hardwired in the control logic so that the control logic also has the function of a memory. The test frequencies f1 and f2 enable noiseless load detection as they may be adapted in frequency and/or amplitude to be inaudible for humans. If acoustical feedback for the test operator is desired for example a frequency f3 (FIG. 6) may be used instead of frequencies f1 or f2.

    [0029] The main advantage of the novel arrangement and method is the insusceptibility to frequency independent tolerances inherent to the load and the load detection system. Besides this it is based on purely electrical measurements and is fully automated therefore it saves costs and time. Since no acoustical measurements are needed, it is immune to noise and does not require microphones. But not only the sub-loads established by loudspeakers may be tested using the novel arrangement and method but also the components of the cross-over network. Further, the novel arrangement and method is not restricted to audio systems but is also applicable in all fields where frequency dependent sub-loads (i.e. impedances) occur. A further advantage is that the novel arrangement and the method are highly insusceptible to any tolerance or measurement errors occurring in the system, e.g., speaker, amplifier, comparator, etc.

    [0030] According to another examplary embodiment of the above discussed method of load detection based on characteristic "geometrical properties" (i.e. on the shape) of the load impedance curve the load can be analyzed by means of comparison of the area between the impedance curve and a specific impedance base line over a specified frequency range to representations of this area for different load situations.

    [0031] One advantage over the example of FIGs. 7 and 8, where only the difference between two frequencies (as an approximation of the slope) is analyzed, can be seen in the still lower susceptibility to tolerances of the load and of the measurement. Another benefit of this embodiment is an increased measurement accuracy which is achieved by multiple measurements at different frequencies. In this way dynamic errors that change between measurements will be suppressed by averaging.

    [0032] FIG. 9 illustrates the impedance of a tweeter connected in series to a capacitor. The equivalent series resistance (short: ESR) of the capacitor and also its capacitance vary drastically over temperature. For example, two impedance curves are depicted in the diagram of FIG. 9, one impedance curve for +20° Celsius and another for -40° Celsius. The tweeter itself also contributes to the total impedance (of Capacitor and tweeter) but its impedance variation over temperature is much lower than that of the capacitor. The example of FIG. 9 is given to illustrate the advantage of considering the "shape" of the impedance curve instead of the absolute impedance values.

    [0033] FIG. 10 illustrates the impedance of a midrange loudspeaker at different temperatures. Accordingly, the impedance of the midrange loudspeaker also varies over temperature but variations are not as high as the impedance variations of the tweeter including its series capacitor (cf. FIG. 9). At -40° Celsius the midrange loudspeaker looses its "resonance hump" but, apart from that, merely exhibits an offset of about 1 Ω to the impedance curve at +20° Celsius. Also illustrated in FIG. 10 is the area between the impedance curve and a "base line" that represents an impedance threshold which is defined as the impedance Zb1(fb1) present at a pre-defined "base frequency" fb1. The symbol Zb1(fb1) refers to the impedance curve measured at +20° Celsius whereas the symbol Z*b1(fb1) as well as all other symbols with a superscript asterisk refer to the impedance curve measured at -40° Celsius. Although the absolute impedance values Zm(fm) change over temperature, the area between the base line and the impedance curve remains almost constant.

    [0034] Similar to the example discussed with reference to FIGs. 6 to 8 the present example makes use of a characteristic quantity that represents rather the shape of the impedance curve than the impedance values themselves. This characteristic quantity may be, for example, the slope of the curve or an approximation thereof as used in the example of FIGs. 6 to 8 as well as the area between the impedance curve and a threshold represented by a base line. The characteristic quantity used in a specific application may represent the shape of the impedance curve only in a limited frequency range which may be sufficient depending on the requirements of the application.

    [0035] In the example of FIG. 10 the sought area is defined by the curve and the threshold Zb1(fb1) for frequencies greater than the base frequency fb1. In the example of FIG. 12, which illustrates the same midrange loudspeaker impedance, the area is calculated between the impedance curve and the impedance threshold Zb2(fb2) which is determined at the base frequency fb2. The difference between these two base frequencies will be discussed in the analysis of the resulting areas.

    [0036] FIGs. 11 and 13 illustrate the combined impedance of the midrange loudspeaker (cf. FIGs. 10 and 12) connected in parallel to the tweeter with its series capacitor (see FIG. 9) for temperatures of 20°C and -40°C. Again the areas between the impedance curves and the impedance base line at Zb1 and Zb2 are shown for the base frequencies fb1 and fb2, respectively. It should be noticed that the measurement frequencies (fm to fm+6) for figure 10 to figure 13 are the same. Only the base frequency is changed (fb1, fb2) and therefore the impedance base line changes which results in different areas between the impedance base line and the impedance curves.

    [0037] To determine the impedance base line (i.e. the threshold Zb1 or Zb2) an impedance measurement at the base frequency fb1 or, alternatively, fb2 is carried out for example with a test setup as shown in FIG. 4. The measured impedance Zb1 or, alternatively, Zb2 defines the impedance base line. Afterwards the impedance at the test frequencies fm to fm+6 is measured in the same way resulting in impedance representations Zm to Zm+6. After this step the areas A as shown in FIGs. 10 and 11 are calculated with the equation:



    [0038] For FIGs. 12 and 13 the equation for the resulting area A is:



    [0039] When using frequency values fm, fm+1, etc. that are equidistant on the frequency scale of the analyzed impedance curve no multiplication is necessary for computing the area A. If the distances between the (for example logarithmically scaled) test frequencies being geometrically equal this distance can be normalized and set to unity without changing the comparability of the resulting area representations.

    [0040] It is important to notice that the geometric properties of the load impedances as shown in FIGs. 10 to 13 are based on a logarithmic scale of the frequency axis. Therefore the test frequencies (fm to fm+6) need to be spaced logarithmically in order to obtain a valid result in accordance to the areas illustrated in the frequency plots. However, a linear frequency scale can also be used. Furthermore, the frequency values at which impedance values are measured do not necessarily need to be equidistant in order to provide useful results. However, in this case the resulting "area" value calculated by eqn. (1) or (2) is not a geometrically interpretable area.

    [0041] The number of test frequencies fm+n (n = 0, 1, ...) is determined by the resolution needed in order to differentiate the impedance curves of all load combinations of interest. For the given example the 7 test frequencies used are sufficient even for large tolerances in the load and the measurement system. This will be analyzed in more detail further below.

    [0042] Below, the assessment of the load impedance according to the above example is compared to the classical single frequency load analysis approach. FIG. 14 illustrates the impedance-over-frequency curve of the midrange loudspeaker already mentioned above (cf. FIG. 10). For a single frequency load analysis the test frequency ftest of about 20kHz has been chosen because it is well within the frequency range that a digital audio system with a 44.1kHz sampling rate can produce and because the impedance at this frequency is considerably different for either the midrange loudspeaker alone or the parallel circuit of the midrange and the tweeter including a series capacitor. In this way the best possible differentiation for the single frequency method is reached. As can be seen in FIG. 15 the minimum difference between the midrange loudspeaker impedance and the impedance of the parallel circuit of the midrange and the tweeter including the series capacitor that occurs at -40°C increases with an increasing frequency.

    [0043] The principle of the single frequency load analysis is simple measurement of the absolute impedance at the test frequency and a comparison to an impedance threshold that decides whether only the midrange loudspeaker is connected or both, the midrange speaker and the tweeter are connected in parallel. As can be seen from FIG. 15, neglecting any measurement errors and tolerances of the load, a minimum difference of about 2.7Ω between the two curves exists at the test frequency ftest. This enables proper differentiation between the above mentioned load configurations (midrange only or midrange and tweeter) only when the tolerance bands of the possible loads do not overlap at the test frequency. However, this is not the case in practice.

    [0044] Unfortunately real world measurement systems show various degrees of measurement accuracy with a tendency to large measurement errors in cheap systems implemented in integrated circuits. Furthermore the load itself may show additional tolerances like part to part variation, aging variations connector contact resistance and so on. Therefore in the following part of the description it is evaluated how the classical single frequency load analysis approach and the novel approach according to the invention handle these tolerances and measurement errors.

    [0045] The comparison of the different load analysis methods is carried out based on the impedance curves discussed above. For comparison purposes the area between an impedance base line (threshold) Zb1 or, alternatively, Zb2 and the impedance curves is calculated as explained above (cf. eqns (1) and (2)). Furthermore, the difference between two impedances at two different frequencies as used in the example of FIGs. 6 to 8 will be evaluated for fb1 and fb2 each combined with fm.

    [0046] For the comparison the impedance values of the midrange loudspeaker and the parallel circuit of midrange loudspeaker and tweeter including a series capacitor have been varied between 0% to ±90% as it would be the case for a measurement system with measurement errors or frequency independent tolerances of the load. For the resulting tolerance bands the minimum difference between the two compared load situations has been calculated and displayed versus the applied tolerance in FIG. 16. The point on the abscissa where the minimum difference between the tolerance bands around the two impedance curves to be distinguished becomes zero is the tolerance above which a differentiation between the two load configurations (i.e. midrange speaker alone or midrange speaker and tweeter) is not possible any more.

    [0047] As can be seen in FIG. 16 for the present example the single frequency load detection has the highest susceptibility to tolerances and errors. Deviations (due to errors and tolerances) greater than about ±18% from the nominal value result in an unreliable or impossible differentiation between the different load configurations. The method that estimates the slope of the impedance curve by calculating the difference fm+2-fb1 works up to deviations of ±34% which is an improvement of tolerance susceptibility of 89%. With an operation limit of about ±36% of tolerances the method that considers the area between the horizontal line at impedance Zb1 (threshold) and the impedance curve is a still a bit better. Changing the base frequency to fb2 results in a maximum possible tolerance of ±55% for the method that considers the slope estimated by calculating the difference between Zb2 and Zm+6. For the area method with a base frequency fb2 the tolerance can get as high as ±90% before the load differentiation becomes impossible. The susceptibility to tolerances is thus improved by up to a factor of 5 (improvement of 400%) between the classical single frequency load impedance analysis and the method based on the impedance curve shape analysis.

    [0048] In case of the load being a loudspeaker it is sometimes desired to make the test signal as little disturbing as possible for humans and also animals or, if possible, to make the test signal even inaudible. As has been noted above frequencies (approx. 20 kHz) outside the human-audible audio band can be used. However, if these frequencies are applied to a loudspeaker in form of a sine wave burst that can be seen as a sine wave multiplied by a rectangular window function, the resulting acoustical signal will be a broad spectrum of frequencies around the test signal frequency that eventually will at least overlap the audible audio band.
    Therefore special window functions need to be applied that keep the resulting frequency spectrum as narrow as possible. Even if the test frequencies are within the audio band a simple rectangular window can lead to unpleasant pop noises that have to be avoided in some cases. Triangle-, trapezoid-, or sine-shaped window functions have been proven to suppress such pop noise (cf. FIGs 17 and 18 for respective triangle- or sine-windowed test signals).


    Claims

    1. A load detection arrangement for a load (2) comprising multiple frequency-dependant sub-loads (2.1, 2.2, ..., 2.n); the arrangement comprises:

    an impedance measuring unit (3) that is connected to the load (2) and adapted to measure a representation of the impedance characteristic of the load (2);

    an evaluation unit adapted for calculating a quantity representing the shape of the impedance characteristic of the load, the quantity being insusceptible to frequency independent errors and/or tolerances;

    a memory unit (6) in which one or more representations of the quantity representing the shape of the impedance characteristic of the load (2) resulting from different configurations of the sub-loads are stored; and

    a comparison unit (7) that is connected to the evaluation unit to receive a representation of the shape of the currently measured impedance characteristic of the load (2) and to the memory unit (6) to receive the stored representations; where

    the comparison unit (7) is configured to compare the measured representation of the shape with each one of the stored representations and, in case that the measured representation matches a stored representation, to identify the configuration of the sub-loads (2.1, 2.2, ..., 2.n) within the load.


     
    2. The arrangement of claim 1 where the different configurations of the sub-loads (2.1, 2,2, ..., 2.n) within the load (2) under test comprises at least one configuration in which at least one sub-load (2.1, 2.2, ..., 2.n) is in a fault condition.
     
    3. The arrangement of claim 1 or 2, where the quantity representing the shape of the impedance characteristic of the load (2) is the area, or an approximation thereof, between a measured impedance curve and a base line representing a constant threshold impedance (Zb1; Zb2) measured at a pre-definded base frequency (fb1; fb2).
     
    4. The arrangement of claim 1 or 2, where the quantity representing the shape of the impedance characteristic of the load (2) is the slope, or an approximation thereof, of a measured impedance curve at at least one pre-defined base frequency.
     
    5. The arrangement of claim 4, where the slope is approximated as the average slope within a pre-defined frequency interval.
     
    6. The arrangement of one of the claims 1 to 5 where the impedance measuring unit (3) comprises a test signal source (4) generating a narrowband test signal having a frequency which is varied during load (2) detection, and a current sensor that is connected between the test signal source (4) and the load (2) and that is adapted to measure the current flowing from the test signal source (4) into the load (2) during load detection.
     
    7. The arrangement of claim 6 where the test signal has an amplitude which is varied during load detection at each one of the frequencies the test signal source (4) is tuned to during load detection and where the measuring unit comprises a comparator comparing the measured current through the load (2) to a threshold at each frequency to provide a representation of the impedance characteristics of the load.
     
    8. The arrangement of claim 6 where the test signal has an amplitude which is constant during load detection at each one of the frequencies the test signal source (4) is tuned to during load detection and where the measuring unit comprises a peak detector identifying the peak of the measured current through the load (2) during detection at each frequency to provide a representation of the impedance characteristics of the load.
     
    9. The arrangement of claim 7 or 8 where the comparison unit (7) comprises a control logic that controls the frequency and amplitude of the test signal source (4) and that compares the representations provided by the comparator or peak detector, respectively, with each other and/or the result thereof with stored representations.
     
    10. The arrangement of claim 9 where the stored representations are part of a truth table that further comprises a list identifying the condition of at least some of the sub-loads (2.1, 2.2, ..., 2.n).
     
    11. The arrangement of claim 10 where the memory unit (6) is included in the comparison unit (7).
     
    12. The arrangement of one of claims 1 to 11 where the impedance measuring unit (3) comprises a signal voltage or current measuring unit.
     
    13. The arrangement of one of claims 1 to 12 where at least one of the sub-loads (2.1, 2.2, ..., 2.n) is a loudspeaker.
     
    14. A load detection method for a load (2) comprising multiple frequency-dependant sub-loads (2.1, 2.2, ..., 2.n); the method comprises the steps of:

    measuring a representation of the impedance characteristic of the load;

    calculating a quantity representing the shape of the impedance characteristic of the load, the quantity being insusceptible to frequency independent errors and/or tolerances;

    providing stored representations of the shape of the impedance characteristics of the load (2) resulting from different configurations of the sub-load; and

    comparing the calculated quantity of the shape of the current impedance characteristic of the load (2) with each one of the stored representations of the shape and, in case that the measured representation matches a stored representation,

    identifying the actual configuration of the sub-loads (2.1, 2.2, ..., 2.n) within the load.


     
    15. The method of claim 14 where the different configurations of the sub-loads (2.1, 2.2, ..., 2.n) within the load (2) under test comprises at least one configuration in which at least one sub-load (2.1, 2.2, ..., 2.n) is in a fault condition.
     
    16. The method of claim 14 or 15, where the quantity representing the shape of the impedance characteristic of the load (2) is the area, or an approximation thereof, between a measured impedance curve and a base line representing a constant threshold impedance (Zb1; Zb2) measured at a pre-defined base frequency (fb1; fb2).
     
    17. The method of claim 14 or 15, where the quantity representing the shape of the impedance characteristic of the load (2) is the slope, or an approximation thereof, of a measured impedance curve at at least one pre-defined base frequency.
     
    18. The method of claim 17, where the slope is approximated as the average slope within a pre-defined frequency interval.
     
    19. The method of one of the claims 14 to 18, where the load (2) is an acoustic transducer comprising, as a sub load (2.1, 2.2, ..., 2.n), at least one loudspeaker, and where the step of measuring a representation of the impedance characteristic of the load (2) comprises:
    providing a test signal having a spectrum that does not overlap with a spectrum audible for humans and/or for animals, whereby the test signal comprises a sinusoidal waveform truncated by window function.
     


    Ansprüche

    1. Lasterkennungsanordnung für eine Last (2), die mehrere frequenzabhängige Unterlasten (2.1, 2.2, ... 2.n) umfasst; wobei die Anordnung Folgendes umfasst:

    eine Impedanzmesseinheit (3), die mit der Last (2) verbunden ist und dazu ausgebildet ist, eine Darstellung der Impedanzkennlinie der Last (2) zu messen;

    eine Auswertungseinheit, die dazu ausgebildet ist, eine Größe zu berechnen, die die Form der Impedanzkennlinie der Last darstellt, wobei die Größe gegenüber frequenzunabhängigen Fehlern und/oder Toleranzen unempfindlich ist;

    eine Speichereinheit (6), in der eine oder mehrere Darstellungen der Größe, die die Form der Impedanzkennlinie der Last (2) darstellt, die aus verschiedenen Konfigurationen der Unterlasten resultiert, gespeichert sind; und

    eine Vergleichseinheit (7), die mit der Auswertungseinheit verbunden ist, um eine Darstellung der Form der aktuell gemessenen Impedanzkennlinie der Last (2) zu empfangen, und mit der Speichereinheit (6) um die gespeicherten Darstellungen zu empfangen, verbunden ist,; wobei

    die Vergleichseinheit (7) konfiguriert ist, um die gemessene Darstellung der Form mit jeder der gespeicherten Darstellungen zu vergleichen, und für den Fall, dass die gemessene Darstellung mit einer gespeicherten Darstellung übereinstimmt, die Konfiguration der Unterlasten (2.1, 2.2, ... 2.n) innerhalb der Last zu identifizieren.


     
    2. Anordnung nach Anspruch 1, wobei die verschiedenen Konfigurationen der Unterlasten (2.1, 2.2, ... 2.n) innerhalb der zu prüfenden Last (2) mindestens eine Konfiguration umfassen, bei der mindestens eine Unterlast (2.1, 2.2, ... 2.n) in einem Fehlerzustand ist.
     
    3. Anordnung nach Anspruch 1 oder 2, wobei die Größe, die die Form der Impedanzkennlinie der Last (2) darstellt, die Fläche zwischen einer gemessenen Impedanzkurve und einer Grundlinie, die eine konstante Schwellenwertimpedanz (Zb1; Zb2) gemessen bei einer vorbestimmten Grundfrequenz (fb1; fb2) darstellt, oder eine Annäherung davon ist.
     
    4. Anordnung nach Anspruch 1 oder 2, wobei die Größe, die die Form der Impedanzkennlinie der Last (2) darstellt, die Steigung einer gemessenen Impedanzkurve bei mindestens einer vorbestimmten Grundfrequenz oder eine Annäherung davon ist.
     
    5. Anordnung nach Anspruch 4, wobei die Steigung als die durchschnittliche Steigung innerhalb eines vorbestimmten Frequenzintervalls angenähert wird.
     
    6. Anordnung nach einem der Ansprüche 1 bis 5, wobei die Impedanzmesseinheit (3) eine Testsignalquelle (4), die ein Schmalbandtestsignal mit einer Frequenz erzeugt, die während der Erkennung der Last (2) variiert wird, und einen Stromsensor umfasst, der zwischen der Testsignalquelle (4) und der Last (2) angeschlossen ist und der dazu ausgebildet ist, den Strom zu messen, der während der Lasterkennung von der Testsignalquelle (4) in die Last (2) fließt.
     
    7. Anordnung nach Anspruch 6, wobei das Testsignal eine Amplitude aufweist, die während der Lasterkennung auf jeder der Frequenzen variiert wird, auf die die Testsignalquelle (4) während der Lasterkennung abgestimmt wird, und wobei die Messeinheit einen Komparator umfasst, der auf jeder Frequenz den gemessenen Strom durch die Last (2) mit einem Schwellenwert vergleicht, um eine Darstellung der Impedanzkennlinie der Last bereitzustellen.
     
    8. Anordnung nach Anspruch 6, wobei das Testsignal eine Amplitude aufweist, die während der Lasterkennung auf jeder der Frequenzen, auf die die Testsignalquelle (4) während der Lasterkennung abgestimmt wird, konstant ist und wobei die Messeinheit einen Spitzendetektor umfasst, der während der Erkennung auf jeder Frequenz die Spitze des gemessenen Stroms durch die Last (2) identifiziert, um eine Darstellung der Impedanzkennlinie der Last bereitzustellen.
     
    9. Anordnung nach Anspruch 7 oder 8, wobei die Vergleichseinheit (7) eine Steuerlogik umfasst, die die Frequenz und Amplitude der Testsignalquelle (4) steuert und die Darstellungen, die jeweils von dem Komparator oder dem Spitzendetektor bereitgestellt werden, miteinander vergleicht und/oder das Ergebnis davon mit gespeicherten Darstellungen vergleicht.
     
    10. Anordnung nach Anspruch 9, wobei die gespeicherten Darstellungen Teil einer Wahrheitstabelle sind, die ferner eine Liste umfasst, die den Zustand von wenigstens einigen der Unterlasten (2.1, 2.2, ... 2.n) identifiziert.
     
    11. Anordnung nach Anspruch 10, wobei die Speichereinheit (6) in der Vergleichseinheit (7) eingeschlossen ist.
     
    12. Anordnung nach einem der Ansprüche 1 bis 11, wobei die Impedanzmesseinheit (3) eine Signalspannungs- oder Strommesseinheit umfasst.
     
    13. Anordnung nach einem der Ansprüche 1 bis 12, wobei wenigstens eine der Unterlasten (2.1, 2.2, ... 2.n) ein Lautsprecher ist.
     
    14. Lasterkennungsverfahren für eine Last (2), die eine Vielzahl frequenzabhängiger Unterlasten (2.1, 2.2, ... 2.n) umfasst; wobei das Verfahren folgende Schritte umfasst:

    Messen einer Darstellung der Impedanzkennlinie der Last;

    Berechnen einer Größe, die die Form der Impedanzkennlinie der Last darstellt, wobei die Größe gegenüber frequenzunabhängigen Fehlern und/oder Toleranzen unempfindlich ist;

    Bereitstellen gespeicherter Darstellungen der Form der Impedanzkennlinien der Last (2), die aus verschiedenen Konfigurationen der Unterlast resultieren; und

    Vergleichen der berechneten Größe der Form der aktuellen Impedanzkennlinie der Last (2) mit jeder der gespeicherten Darstellungen der Form und im Fall, dass die gemessene Darstellung mit einer gespeicherten Darstellung übereinstimmt,

    Identifizieren der tatsächlichen Konfiguration der Unterlasten (2.1, 2.2, ... 2.n) innerhalb der Last.


     
    15. Verfahren nach Anspruch 14, wobei die verschiedenen Konfigurationen der Unterlasten (2.1, 2.2, ... 2.n) innerhalb der zu prüfenden Last (2) mindestens eine Konfiguration umfassen, bei der mindestens eine Unterlast (2.1, 2.2, ... 2.n) in einem Fehlerzustand ist.
     
    16. Verfahren nach Anspruch 14 oder 15, wobei die Größe, die die Form der Impedanzkennlinie der Last (2) darstellt, die Fläche zwischen einer gemessenen Impedanzkurve und einer Grundlinie, die eine konstante Schwellenwertimpedanz (Zb1; Zb2) darstellt, gemessen bei einer vorbestimmten Grundfrequenz (fb1; fb2), oder eine Annäherung davon ist.
     
    17. Verfahren nach Anspruch 14 oder 15, wobei die Größe, die die Form der Impedanzkennlinie der Last (2) darstellt, die Steigung einer gemessenen Impedanzkurve bei mindestens einer vorbestimmten Grundfrequenz oder eine Annäherung davon ist.
     
    18. Verfahren nach Anspruch 17, wobei die Steigung als die durchschnittliche Steigung innerhalb eines vorbestimmten Frequenzintervalls angenähert wird.
     
    19. Verfahren nach einem der Ansprüche 14 bis 18, wobei die Last (2) ein akustischer Wandler ist, der als Unterlast (2.1, 2.2, ... 2.n) mindestens einen Lautsprecher umfasst, und wobei der Schritt des Messens einer Darstellung der Impedanzkennlinie der Last (2) Folgendes umfasst:
    Bereitstellen eines Testsignals, das ein Spektrum aufweist, das sich nicht mit dem Spektrum, das für Menschen und/oder Tiere hörbar ist, überschneidet, wobei das Testsignal eine durch Fensterfunktion abgestumpfte Sinuswellenform umfasst.
     


    Revendications

    1. Agencement de détection de charge pour une charge (2) comprenant de multiples sous-charges dépendant de la fréquence (2.1, 2.2, ..., 2.n) ; l'agencement comprend :

    une unité de mesure d'impédance (3) qui est connectée à la charge (2) et adaptée pour mesurer une représentation de la caractéristique d'impédance de la charge (2) ;

    une unité d'évaluation adaptée pour calculer une quantité représentant la forme de la caractéristique d'impédance de la charge, la quantité étant insensible à des erreurs et/ou des tolérances indépendantes de la fréquence ;

    une unité de mémoire (6) dans laquelle une ou plusieurs représentations de la quantité représentant la forme de la caractéristique d'impédance de la charge (2) résultant de configurations différentes des sous-charges sont stockées ; et

    une unité de comparaison (7) qui est connectée à l'unité d'évaluation pour recevoir une représentation de la forme de la caractéristique d'impédance actuellement mesurée de la charge (2) et à l'unité de mémoire (6) pour recevoir les représentations stockées ; dans lequel

    l'unité de comparaison (7) est configurée pour comparer la représentation mesurée de la forme avec chacune des représentations stockées et, dans le cas où la représentation mesurée concorde avec une représentation stockée, pour identifier la configuration des sous-charges (2.1, 2.2, ..., 2.n) au sein de la charge.


     
    2. Agencement selon la revendication 1, dans lequel les configurations différentes des sous-charges (2.1, 2.2, ..., 2.n) au sein de la charge (2) à l'essai comprennent au moins une configuration dans laquelle au moins une sous-charge (2.1, 2.2, ..., 2.n) est dans une condition de défaut.
     
    3. Agencement selon la revendication 1 ou 2, dans lequel la quantité représentant la forme de la caractéristique d'impédance de la charge (2) est l'aire, ou une approximation de celle-ci, entre une courbe d'impédance mesurée et une ligne de base représentant une impédance seuil constante (Zb1 ; Zb2) mesurée à une fréquence de base prédéfinie (fb1 ; fb2).
     
    4. Agencement selon la revendication 1 ou 2, dans lequel la quantité représentant la forme de la caractéristique d'impédance de la charge (2) est la pente, ou une approximation de celle-ci, d'une courbe d'impédance mesurée à au moins une fréquence de base prédéfinie.
     
    5. Agencement selon la revendication 4, dans lequel la pente est approximée en tant que pente moyenne au sein d'un intervalle de fréquence prédéfini.
     
    6. Agencement selon l'une des revendications 1 à 5, dans lequel l'unité de mesure d'impédance (3) comprend une source de signal d'essai (4) générant un signal d'essai à bande étroite ayant une fréquence qui est variée pendant la détection de charge (2), et un capteur de courant qui est connecté entre la source de signal d'essai (4) et la charge (2) et qui est adapté pour mesurer le courant circulant depuis la source de signal d'essai (4) dans la charge (2) pendant la détection de charge.
     
    7. Agencement selon la revendication 6, dans lequel le signal d'essai a une amplitude qui est variée pendant la détection de charge à chacune des fréquences auxquelles la source de signal d'essai (4) est accordée pendant la détection de charge et dans lequel l'unité de mesure comprend un comparateur comparant le courant mesuré à travers la charge (2) à un seuil à chaque fréquence pour fournir une représentation des caractéristiques d'impédance de la charge.
     
    8. Agencement selon la revendication 6, dans lequel le signal d'essai a une amplitude qui est constante pendant la détection de charge à chacune des fréquences auxquelles la source de signal d'essai (4) est accordée pendant la détection de charge et dans lequel l'unité de mesure comprend un détecteur de crête identifiant la crête du courant mesuré à travers la charge (2) pendant la détection à chaque fréquence pour fournir une représentation des caractéristiques d'impédance de la charge.
     
    9. Agencement selon la revendication 7 ou 8, dans lequel l'unité de comparaison (7) comprend une logique de commande qui commande la fréquence et l'amplitude de la source de signal d'essai (4) et qui compare les représentations fournies par le comparateur ou le détecteur de crête, respectivement, les unes aux autres et/ou leur résultat à des représentations stockées.
     
    10. Agencement selon la revendication 9, dans lequel les représentations stockées font partie d'une table de vérité qui comprend en outre une liste identifiant la condition d'au moins certaines des sous-charges (2.1, 2.2, ..., 2.n).
     
    11. Agencement selon la revendication 10, dans lequel l'unité de mémoire (6) est incluse dans l'unité de comparaison (7).
     
    12. Agencement selon l'une des revendications 1 à 11, dans lequel l'unité de mesure d'impédance (3) comprend une unité de mesure de courant ou tension de signal.
     
    13. Agencement selon l'une des revendications 1 à 12, dans lequel au moins l'une des sous-charges (2.1, 2.2, ..., 2.n) est un haut-parleur.
     
    14. Procédé de détection de charge pour une charge (2) comprenant de multiples sous-charges dépendant de la fréquence (2.1, 2.2, ..., 2.n) ; le procédé comprenant les étapes de :

    mesure d'une représentation de la caractéristique d'impédance de la charge ;

    calcul d'une quantité représentant la forme de la caractéristique d'impédance de la charge, la quantité étant insensible à des erreurs et/ou des tolérances indépendantes de la fréquence ;

    fourniture de représentations stockées de la forme des caractéristiques d'impédance de la charge (2) résultant de configurations différentes de la sous-charge ; et

    comparaison de la quantité calculée de la forme de la caractéristique d'impédance actuelle de la charge (2) avec chacune des représentations stockées de la forme et, dans le cas où la représentation mesurée concorde avec une représentation stockée,

    identification de la configuration réelle des sous-charges (2.1, 2.2, ..., 2.n) au sein de la charge.


     
    15. Procédé selon la revendication 14, dans lequel les configurations différentes des sous-charges (2.1, 2.2, ..., 2.n) au sein de la charge (2) à l'essai comprennent au moins une configuration dans laquelle au moins une sous-charge (2.1, 2.2, ..., 2.n) est dans une condition de défaut.
     
    16. Procédé selon la revendication 14 ou 15, dans lequel la quantité représentant la forme de la caractéristique d'impédance de la charge (2) est l'aire, ou une approximation de celle-ci, entre une courbe d'impédance mesurée et une ligne de base représentant une impédance seuil constante (Zb1 ; Zb2) mesurée à une fréquence de base prédéfinie (fb1 ; fb2).
     
    17. Procédé selon la revendication 14 ou 15, dans lequel la quantité représentant la forme de la caractéristique d'impédance de la charge (2) est la pente, ou une approximation de celle-ci, d'une courbe d'impédance mesurée à au moins une fréquence de base prédéfinie.
     
    18. Procédé selon la revendication 17, dans lequel la pente est approximée en tant que pente moyenne au sein d'un intervalle de fréquence prédéfini.
     
    19. Procédé selon l'une des revendications 14 à 18, dans lequel la charge (2) est un transducteur acoustique comprenant, en tant que sous-charge (2.1, 2.2, ..., 2.n), au moins un haut-parleur, et dans lequel l'étape de mesure d'une représentation de la caractéristique d'impédance de la charge (2) comprend :
    la fourniture d'un signal d'essai ayant un spectre qui ne chevauche pas un spectre audible pour des humains et/ou pour des animaux, moyennant quoi le signal d'essai comprend une forme d'onde sinusoïdale tronquée par une fonction fenêtre.
     




    Drawing



























    REFERENCES CITED IN THE DESCRIPTION



    This list of references cited by the applicant is for the reader's convenience only. It does not form part of the European patent document. Even though great care has been taken in compiling the references, errors or omissions cannot be excluded and the EPO disclaims all liability in this regard.

    Patent documents cited in the description