Go Back   Home > Forums > Amplifiers > Chip Amps

Chip Amps Amplifiers based on integrated circuits

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 25th February 2008, 04:12 PM   #1
diyAudio Member
 
xiphmont's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Send a message via AIM to xiphmont
Question Response modification via Input filters: RFQ

This is not exactly the right place for this topic. It falls between categories. It concerns full range speakers, but is more in the expertise domain of amplifiers. I'm planning to use it with a chipamp project, so I'll ask here.

Several speaker projects use passive low-Q output-side notch filters to cut small reponse peaks and humps out of the cabinet/driver response. Generally, these filters are on the huge/beefy side like a passive crossover would be because they have to be able to dissipate several watts.

I'm building a powered monitor project-- full range driver/enclosure with dedicated internal monoblock chipamp. Because the chipamp is built in and the enclosure will never be used with some other amp, it makes less sense to put the response filter between the amp and driver. A similarly designed passive response shaper on the input would be preferable in that it would not waste output power and could be tiny in comparison (dissipating microwatts instead of watts).

The math and basic filter design are straightforward. I'm not asking for help there. What I do want to ask about is a few practical concerns that can't be captured by simulation software:

1) Is there a reason the input filter shouldn't use off-the-shelf shielded inductors, such as the Delevan 1641 series? These are designed for RF-- but that just makes them 'overqualified' for line-level microamp audio frequency use, correct?

2) How good, really, is the shielding on shielded inductors? They'll be several inches away from a toroidal power transformer.

3) Is there a reason to prefer parallel over series notch filter topology? Parallel topology tends to be used for the response shaping filters that sit between the amp and driver, while I've only seen series topology used for driver impedence correction. My instinct tells me they're entirely equivalent for response shaping and the series topology is easier to compute/account for non-ideal components (eg, the DC resistence of the inductor). We're only talking about cuts of 1-2dB on an input impedence of 100k or so.

[edit: grammar]
__________________
"My name's Monty, and I break things."
"Hello, Monty!"
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Input & Feedback filters lhwidget Chip Amps 11 27th June 2009 09:16 PM
Original A9.8 input voltage modification cicada_17 Digital Source 2 26th November 2006 09:16 AM
Tivoli Model One Aux Input Modification YoungClay Parts 3 18th July 2005 09:19 AM
Doubts on Phase Response and Frequency Response dumrum Multi-Way 11 5th April 2004 10:39 AM
input impedance of active filters.q theChris Analogue Source 1 25th June 2003 11:07 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 05:50 PM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2