I recently purchased 3 DiyParadise Charlize Amps with the intention of using them for each of the outputs on a Behringer DCX2496 Digital Crossover.
The DCX2496 will be modified for a single ended direct output from the DAC. The DAC's direct output is something like 600 ohms
at 6v which is then wired into a 4.7uf capacitor and 1k resistor and rca jack - wired to a passive stepped attenuator (or tva).
So here's my question:
Given this situation, since there is already a capacitor in the output signal path from the DCX to the passive attenuator is the input cap on the Charlize really necessary at all?
And what if I used a transformer attenuator like the S&B tx102 wired DIRECTLY to the DAC no caps then out to the Charlize.. I shouldn't need an input cap in the path from the DCX's DAC to the Charlize at all. The Transformer decouples and provides the ness. isolation. Right?
In that case it would be..
DAC - TVA - Chalize (sans input caps.)
I don't want to burn anything up but don't want to be redundant by placing more than one cap in the signal path.
Please advise.
Thanks!
The DCX2496 will be modified for a single ended direct output from the DAC. The DAC's direct output is something like 600 ohms
at 6v which is then wired into a 4.7uf capacitor and 1k resistor and rca jack - wired to a passive stepped attenuator (or tva).
So here's my question:
Given this situation, since there is already a capacitor in the output signal path from the DCX to the passive attenuator is the input cap on the Charlize really necessary at all?
And what if I used a transformer attenuator like the S&B tx102 wired DIRECTLY to the DAC no caps then out to the Charlize.. I shouldn't need an input cap in the path from the DCX's DAC to the Charlize at all. The Transformer decouples and provides the ness. isolation. Right?
In that case it would be..
DAC - TVA - Chalize (sans input caps.)
I don't want to burn anything up but don't want to be redundant by placing more than one cap in the signal path.
Please advise.
Thanks!
what attenuator in this config
In the configuration above..
Source output 600ohms 6V - what type of passive attenuator would work best between the DCX and the Charlize?
I generally listen at lower volume levels and want attenuators that are optimal for this.
The two I was thinking about and would like feeback on regarding their advantage and disadvantages:
Intact Audio Autoformers? Very interested in these.. the price is right if they are a good fit - although someone once told me that Autoformer attenuators would not be good with the Charlize do to its input impeadance? is this true? If not would love to try this route.
Daven T-Attenuators: I have a few pairs on hand or available a 600/600 ohms pair a 4600/4600om pair and a 50k/50k pair
thanks
In the configuration above..
Source output 600ohms 6V - what type of passive attenuator would work best between the DCX and the Charlize?
I generally listen at lower volume levels and want attenuators that are optimal for this.
The two I was thinking about and would like feeback on regarding their advantage and disadvantages:
Intact Audio Autoformers? Very interested in these.. the price is right if they are a good fit - although someone once told me that Autoformer attenuators would not be good with the Charlize do to its input impeadance? is this true? If not would love to try this route.
Daven T-Attenuators: I have a few pairs on hand or available a 600/600 ohms pair a 4600/4600om pair and a 50k/50k pair
thanks
Hi.
I was running a DAC-TX102-Charlize config before.
With the TX102 in the loop you can't skip input caps on Charlize.
The secondary winding builds a DC bridge to the amp input and the primary to the DAC output.
Finally I connected my DAC directly to Charlize and got rid of one
out of two caps and the TX102.
I also decreased the value of the input cap for the mids and
highs down to 0,047uf. This heavily improved the transient response. At these low cap-values you can get real high quality caps at relatively low cost in the loop.
My volume is controlled via the PC (64bit floats).
This setup beats the prior setup in all aspects (sound quality, cost, handling)
Cheers
I was running a DAC-TX102-Charlize config before.
With the TX102 in the loop you can't skip input caps on Charlize.
The secondary winding builds a DC bridge to the amp input and the primary to the DAC output.
Finally I connected my DAC directly to Charlize and got rid of one
out of two caps and the TX102.
I also decreased the value of the input cap for the mids and
highs down to 0,047uf. This heavily improved the transient response. At these low cap-values you can get real high quality caps at relatively low cost in the loop.
My volume is controlled via the PC (64bit floats).
This setup beats the prior setup in all aspects (sound quality, cost, handling)
Cheers
Thanks Soundcheck. This is interesting.
When you said that you decreased the input caps down to .047uf are you referring to the input caps on the Charlize?
the stock input caps are 4.7 uf blackgates or something like that.
I had read that someone was happy with 10uf paper in oil caps on theirs..
I have 6 each of the following vitamin Q caps on hand..
.47uf
4uf
and 12 uf...
think any of these would work?
what is the effect of a lower or higher value input cap here.. I really am not understanding this part of the amp.
Thanks a lot!
When you said that you decreased the input caps down to .047uf are you referring to the input caps on the Charlize?
the stock input caps are 4.7 uf blackgates or something like that.
I had read that someone was happy with 10uf paper in oil caps on theirs..
I have 6 each of the following vitamin Q caps on hand..
.47uf
4uf
and 12 uf...
think any of these would work?
what is the effect of a lower or higher value input cap here.. I really am not understanding this part of the amp.
Thanks a lot!
soundcheck said:
Correct-o-mundo! It's just a simple 1st order high pass. Usually the cap value is choosen to set the pole at 10Hz or lower. A 2.2uF cap will do fine for full range.
However, is you aren't using the full range - for example the amp is driving a midrange or tweeter, you can go with a smaller cap. Much smaller, in fact.
Loose rule of thumb. If a 2.2uF cap is good down to 20Hz or below, then a 0.2uF would be good for 200Hz and a 0.02uF for 2Khz. The idea here is - if you don't need those bass frequencies, why waste the power? The smaller cap will help keep you out of clipping, too. And that's a good thing.
A really big cap, like 5uF and up will give you a big turn on pop at power on. Unless you have a soft-start circuit.
You do need a cap to block the 2.5V input bias coming from the Tripath chip. You can only get away with no cap if you are very careful about your circuits and paths to ground on the inputs - there can not be ANY.
thanks. since i am trying to make the three amps uniform to use the dcx for learning (and modeling conventional xover configs)...
perhaps i should use the 4uf vitamin q caps?
would these be better than the black gates that are in there?
i do have 6 of them.
also .47s vit-q's on hand
and some others.. some 2.2 paper in oils (russian)
do plan to use a soft start circuit basically one that takes the amps accross 6volts first then up to 12 (battery power)
perhaps i should use the 4uf vitamin q caps?
would these be better than the black gates that are in there?
i do have 6 of them.
also .47s vit-q's on hand
and some others.. some 2.2 paper in oils (russian)
do plan to use a soft start circuit basically one that takes the amps accross 6volts first then up to 12 (battery power)
this is so interesting.
thanks.
so pano said that this is simple first order high pass.
would changing the cap here be the same as putting a xover between the amp and speaker?
for example i need one to drive a horn 106db efficient 8 ohms and need a first order highpass
could i do this with only the input cap?
provided my pre-amp provided a fixed 600ohm input signal?
also still wondering that the ideal type of cap would be... if the vitamin q caps i have would be as good as other paper in oils?
thanks!
thanks.
so pano said that this is simple first order high pass.
would changing the cap here be the same as putting a xover between the amp and speaker?
for example i need one to drive a horn 106db efficient 8 ohms and need a first order highpass
could i do this with only the input cap?
provided my pre-amp provided a fixed 600ohm input signal?
also still wondering that the ideal type of cap would be... if the vitamin q caps i have would be as good as other paper in oils?
thanks!
Hi,
if you can arrange for a lower source impedance than 600ohms then go for that.
Many pre-amps have Rs between 50r and 200r.
No idea about vitamin q.
Paper in oil, do they pass (leak) DC eventually?
You could try polypropylene (pp), polyester (pes), or if your budget is limitless teflon.
Don't even bother with any of the ceramics or mica for a coupling cap.
If your horn performs well with only a single pole high pass filter, then yes, a passive filter before the amp will work just as well as an active filter. This is a Butterworth roll-off with Q=0.71. It is not adjustable. But take care to ensure your tolerances give what you think you are building.
What happens to your horn if the amp sends DC to it?
Will it survive switch or off surges when there is no filter between amp and driver.
if you can arrange for a lower source impedance than 600ohms then go for that.
Many pre-amps have Rs between 50r and 200r.
No idea about vitamin q.
Paper in oil, do they pass (leak) DC eventually?
You could try polypropylene (pp), polyester (pes), or if your budget is limitless teflon.
Don't even bother with any of the ceramics or mica for a coupling cap.
If your horn performs well with only a single pole high pass filter, then yes, a passive filter before the amp will work just as well as an active filter. This is a Butterworth roll-off with Q=0.71. It is not adjustable. But take care to ensure your tolerances give what you think you are building.
What happens to your horn if the amp sends DC to it?
Will it survive switch or off surges when there is no filter between amp and driver.
Jann.. already following your project closely and reading the threads on the yahoo group.
: )
Keep wondering if its significantly different than the selectronix kit though ?
link
Anyhow.. I have all the parts to try something now with 3 stereo pots a dcx, three charlize amps and a pile of vintage paper in oil caps..
will try this first..
thanks everyone for an interesting and educational discussion. .wil post my findings when i can.
: )
Keep wondering if its significantly different than the selectronix kit though ?
link
Anyhow.. I have all the parts to try something now with 3 stereo pots a dcx, three charlize amps and a pile of vintage paper in oil caps..
will try this first..
thanks everyone for an interesting and educational discussion. .wil post my findings when i can.
ark said:
As different as can be.
Set different levels for low, mid, high freq. bands to compensate for speaker driver and power amp sensitivity differences.
Set balance for whole system without changing relative levels for low, mid, high.
Save/load complete setups in three memory 'profiles'.
Adjust analog input levels if you want to use that.
Front panel A/N display to see at a glance all relative levels and balance and to select functions from a menu.
"Factory default" setting to get you out of a situation where you loose track of what is set to what.
MUTE and On/Off function.
All functions full remote control.
It's a different philosophy, more user oriented I would say. More info on my website. And my unit is specifically designed to fit in the DCX2496 without modifications to the DSP board etc, using a new flat cable set only.
But maybe I should also make a stand-alone version..?
Jan Didden
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.