By the way, guys, I do read Japanese, and that crossover replacement project on those three pages in Japanese is still in progress, apparently. Although I have not read all three pages carefully, I did skim it from beginning to end and it seems pretty clear that he does not yet consider what he has done to be satisfactory. Just in case anyone might be tempted to try duplicating that . . .
-- Chris
-- Chris
Salas, I agree completely. Working on crossovers is never as easy as swapping components out. Detailed impedance, frequency response and preferably some polar plots for each drivers are nearly a must have to have hope of getting it right. Swapping out iron core for air core in most crossovers will definitely lead to a change in sound, but I'd be hesitant to believe that it would automatically be a good change in sonics.
zoranaudio said:
Zoran
You can only make this statement if you have actually tested the inductor in question at 50W of input power. Whereas this effect might be true of under-spec'ed inductors, it is a major generalisation to assert that it is the case here. Whilst I have discovered laminated iron core inductors that are inherently non-linear (i.e., they already have distorted impedance curves, even at small signal levels) I have also wound ferrite core inductors that start to saturate only after several amperes*.
Here is a link to a discussion about air core vs ferrite core inductors that might shed some light. One person actually did some measurements.
Iron-core versus air-core woofer inductor intermod test.
Edit: *I mean no saturation observed within the range tested.
dnewma04 said:
You are forgetting one thing and that is with most "audio gurus" the use of any sort of test equipment is a tantamount to heresy !!! Why use test equipment when you are blessed with "golden ears" that are infinitely better than any test equipment ??
The truth of the matter is that if people are so concerned about the effects of inductors and capacitors in crossovers why not just eliminate them altogether and go completely active and tri-amp the speakers so you don't have to worry about stressing out the passive elements with large amounts of currents ?? Also inductors are no longer an issue with active crossovers
It's a much better idea than having to worry about air cored silver wire inductors and teflon capacitors It is easier to tweak an active crossover than it is to solder capacitors and inductors in an out of a passive crossover. Really it should be a no brainer !!! I don't get what all of the fuss is all about !!
I'm going to chuck some petrol on this bonfire.
Changing the caps, you have changed the load presented to the amp.
By doing that, you have made the speaker easier (or harder) to drive, and maintain control.
For 'lower level' amplifiers harder to drive = more distortion.
More distortion = greater apparent loudness.
It may also be that you were with the original crossover operating closer to the distortion break point for your amplifier (running closer to its limits) than you realised, and the altered equivalent DCR of the new crossover has tipped you over the edge.
Next step Active.
That really IS a revelation.
Owen
Not that I'm an expert by any means but a lot of people say going fully active gives you a more "hi-fi" but less well integrated and organically musical sound than a well made passive crossover. Decent tri-amping is now probably feasible at lower cost and lower heat output than was ever possible in the past. I suppose it can't hurt to try. If you go to an outboard crossover, tri-amping is easily implemented too . . .
-- Chris
-- Chris
JC951t said:
It is bad if it measures bad because it is adding artifacts to the original signal. The test equipment is showing you this but you choose to ignore it because you like the coloration that it adds to the signal. Your argument is flawed and is a classic case of the fallacy of special pleading.
Nor am I suggesting one versus the other. It's a case of removing that part of the circuit which can be done a lot better by other means.
Active crossovers?- Yes but not in this case cos somebody wants to improve this normally good speakers! It is more expensive that replace some parts of the passive elements inside.Active XO will pull two or three amplifiers depends of xo is 2 or 3- way!- the system will be very complex, than to feed speaker with simple one amplifier which , if you don't like the sound it is very easy to combine speaker with other amp.
For me the best use of active xo is for other project of active speaker complete with the amps inside the box.
BTW I have never measured saturation of the ferrite ant other core inductors, that's only what I heard from more experienced people than me, and I always using air core coils except sometimes for the woofer if the cut frequency has to be very low under 250 - 300 Hz.So why to use core coils if somebody measure saturation even on 1 watt of power or more, mаybe the price!
For me the best use of active xo is for other project of active speaker complete with the amps inside the box.
BTW I have never measured saturation of the ferrite ant other core inductors, that's only what I heard from more experienced people than me, and I always using air core coils except sometimes for the woofer if the cut frequency has to be very low under 250 - 300 Hz.So why to use core coils if somebody measure saturation even on 1 watt of power or more, mаybe the price!
cdwitmer said:
Those people telling you this are totally misinformed.
How can a passive crossover carrying a thousand times more current and energy do a better job than an active crossover that works at low power and doesn't even need to use inductors or suffer from their associated non linearities ??Also a bi-amped or tri-amped system puts a lot less demand on the amplifiers because its power spectrum is band limited
These things are common sense and should be obvious !!
snoopy said:
You're preaching to the choir but the person who told me that was the president and chief designer of one of the world's leading horn speaker manufacturers, and the sorts of systems he builds are among the ones that hard-core audiophiles would be most likely to want to multi-amp. He has tried and tried and his conclusion was that the trade-offs were not worth the gains. And when I mentioned that to top people at two other high-end loudspeaker manufacturers, they surprised me by saying they thought he was correct!
By the way, the person in question builds passive crossovers that probably cost as much as tri-amping with high-performance budget equipment would cost (say, US$2,000 per pair or more), so they are pretty impressive crossovers, not just a couple of cheap coils and caps thrown together from Rat Shack . . .
Anyway, I have done a lot of multi-amping over the years and I agree the approach has a lot going for it. But it is hard to simply dismiss out of hand when guys like the ones described above come out with statements like that. Ignoramuses they are not.
-- Chris
Hi Snoopy,
"a classic case of the fallacy of special pleading."
If that's the case so be it. Topics like this are highly
argumentative. If you ever have a chance just try
this. Compare an EI trans with a Toriod trans of the
same specs in any equipment you built & see which
will sound better.
"a classic case of the fallacy of special pleading."
If that's the case so be it. Topics like this are highly
argumentative. If you ever have a chance just try
this. Compare an EI trans with a Toriod trans of the
same specs in any equipment you built & see which
will sound better.
Snoopy, when a system uses op amps or digital processors, it works at lower electrical levels but it features a zillion of silicon junctions on a chip construction level. Its not that easy not to alter the chain's sound. State of the art digital processors in professional reinforcement rigs, considered transparent enough by pros cost about 3000 Euro. Add amplification channels. You start copying a passive speaker with a couple of five way binding posts, and you end up with a fully blown rig on a dedicated rack.
It takes a well versed speaker designer with well calibrated measurement equipment to copy every detail of an originally passively controlled monitor over many angles in to the digital control domain. Some passive crossover methods can not be found in active control. Things like impedance control and special traps. Also the majority of passive speakers use crossover curves that are not textbook. Even best regarded Nexo systems I have opened, have passive subsystems in the cabinets that work hand in hand with their dedicated digital controllers. Mainly horn resonance traps. Active is the only choice when the power levels (kW range) just exclude passive control for obvious dissipation (reliability) issues.
The level of delay control, filter order and all pass EQ shape free play, notches, level matching etc. is great in controllers, add the speed of implementation and you are king. But emulating a very successful passive classic monitor is no mean feat, trust me.
Non the less bugging a dedicated subjectivist thread with our hi tech stuff is not socially elegant at least.
It takes a well versed speaker designer with well calibrated measurement equipment to copy every detail of an originally passively controlled monitor over many angles in to the digital control domain. Some passive crossover methods can not be found in active control. Things like impedance control and special traps. Also the majority of passive speakers use crossover curves that are not textbook. Even best regarded Nexo systems I have opened, have passive subsystems in the cabinets that work hand in hand with their dedicated digital controllers. Mainly horn resonance traps. Active is the only choice when the power levels (kW range) just exclude passive control for obvious dissipation (reliability) issues.
The level of delay control, filter order and all pass EQ shape free play, notches, level matching etc. is great in controllers, add the speed of implementation and you are king. But emulating a very successful passive classic monitor is no mean feat, trust me.
Non the less bugging a dedicated subjectivist thread with our hi tech stuff is not socially elegant at least.
cdwitmer said:
That sounds like a limitation of his horn speakers and not the active crossover !!! Anyway we are dealing with direct radiator moving coil loudspeakers and not horns so that generalization to his horn systems would most likely not apply
The way audio is nobody wants to buy an active speaker, not because it is bad but because it is not fashionable. Not everything that is good or better in audio always sells unfortunately
Just ask the sound reinforcement industry and you will get a completely opposite view By the way who is this horn manufacturer ??
The reinforcement industry puts practical considerations of reliability, integration, dynamics, SPL, and versatility far above sonic aesthetics. In studios you get more contention. An active speaker is great if conceived as such. See Genelec etc. Altering the Yamaha 1000 is the question at hand, and you keep on talking about emulating it actively to a man's thread that is a self confessed non tech.