Ok then I will stick to schematic values... I have an Omnimic v2. Already measured FRD on a 20-20K sine sweep. Let me recap and measure again. Thanks a lot speakerdoctor.
I used the printed values as much as possible for mid and high, but because the coils are hard to find in these values, I used the closest standard value and modeled what the impact on phase and freq. response would be. Target was always to stay as close to the original as possible. After the upgrade the speakers sound more transparant and smooth, but with exactly the same character. So in my case the printed values proved to be right.
This year I broke L3 which was 0,47 mH in one XOver with my screwdriver and I replaced it with spare 0,39mH's and that clearly changed the sound (into the better to my personal taste by the way).
I would think that C4 shouldn"t measure 4,7 uF. I would first change this to a polyprop 2,7 uF and listen.
This year I broke L3 which was 0,47 mH in one XOver with my screwdriver and I replaced it with spare 0,39mH's and that clearly changed the sound (into the better to my personal taste by the way).
I would think that C4 shouldn"t measure 4,7 uF. I would first change this to a polyprop 2,7 uF and listen.
Here is todays measurement on one of the speakers... I did not move the speaker before and after the recap. First measured the speaker, then recapped without moving the speaker or the mic(Did not even shut down the Omnimic or computer) and then measured again with exact same settings after the recap.
Omnimic Set approximately 1meter on Axis. 2.83V AC read on 50Hz bass tone for voltage measurement. And finally used short sine sweep 20-20Khz as the track for measurement.
I can hear a lot of difference(positive) when I listen. Measurement I am afraid shows very little difference. Here is it for you to judge.
Here is the Free Air, Impedance measurement. on DATS(After recap)
I used Audyn Caps everywhere. To printed Values.
Here is the Crossover after recap
Last edited:
I do hear quite a difference when I listened to the speakers before and after the mod. The speakers feel much more detailed now. But as you see the before and after measurement, there is no huge amount of change right?
Main difference is above 10KHz it's a little more flatter. Is this what you expected too? Or are you surprised by the before and after measurements? That so little change is there?
Last edited:
I like the FR dip in the 2-6 kHz range. That is where your hearing is most sensitive.
Looking over the lytic meas. you made which showed some drift upwards, the change wasn't great. However, what you didn't meas. was ESR. If you still have those old ones and can find a way to meas. it would be interesting to see.
The change you hear may be wholly due to the ESR change from the lytics to film which is to be expected.
Play them for a couple of weeks and listen for any break in.
They seem similar. But room acoustics are dominating the low frequencies. I see a large room mode starting at 20 Hz. Mine don't go that low, although...?
The vertical scale is 5 dB per step. So at 180 Hz. you still have 2-3 dB decrease, which must be pretty audible.
The upgrade of the 2,7 uF capacitor into a new polyprop cap was the biggest audible effect in my case. I better call that 'repair' because I think after 35+years that perticular cap was finished. I used Audyn too. Later I changed that cap into a supercap but that wasn't really audible enough to recommand. That tiny change in sound could have been wishfull thinking after spending money on it.
The vertical scale is 5 dB per step. So at 180 Hz. you still have 2-3 dB decrease, which must be pretty audible.
The upgrade of the 2,7 uF capacitor into a new polyprop cap was the biggest audible effect in my case. I better call that 'repair' because I think after 35+years that perticular cap was finished. I used Audyn too. Later I changed that cap into a supercap but that wasn't really audible enough to recommand. That tiny change in sound could have been wishfull thinking after spending money on it.
ns 1000m crossover experience
I've been at recapping my crossover for the past year or so. I've learned that not only were the original caps out of spec, but replacing them cheaply did not contribute to improved sound. After trying many times to recap with a variety of capacitors, I learned that better sound is synonymous with higher priced caps.
Also, I found that the inductors were out of spec. Adding windings of new wire until they spec'ed out, was the cheap way to go. But using air coiled ones for the smaller drivers, was recommended.
Also, I found that the crossover pc board had cracked traces.
I'm now in the process of replacing the boards for a small plank of wood.
Trying a different set of unmolested ns 1000 crossovers opened my ears to the great sound that the ns 1000's can produce.
I've been at recapping my crossover for the past year or so. I've learned that not only were the original caps out of spec, but replacing them cheaply did not contribute to improved sound. After trying many times to recap with a variety of capacitors, I learned that better sound is synonymous with higher priced caps.
Also, I found that the inductors were out of spec. Adding windings of new wire until they spec'ed out, was the cheap way to go. But using air coiled ones for the smaller drivers, was recommended.
Also, I found that the crossover pc board had cracked traces.
I'm now in the process of replacing the boards for a small plank of wood.
Trying a different set of unmolested ns 1000 crossovers opened my ears to the great sound that the ns 1000's can produce.
ns 1000m crossover experience 2
These are my further observations: Ensuring that the bass inductor is at 5mH and that the bass caps are at 47uf, BROUGHT OUT THE BASS! The bass can overshadow the highs, though. Cheap poly caps can be used to create the 47uf. The electrolytic variety proved ineffective.
Replacing the 2.7uf tweeter cap and bringing it up to 2.8uf(used a 2.7uf Mundorf evo oil and added a .1uf poly cap) brought it to life. Keeping it at 2.7uf resulted in less brightness. Cheap caps are not advisable here. The use of polycaps here was not effective(metallic sound).
The midrange 3.5uf cap was reading 4.5uf and was replaced with one of the same caps from the row which make- up the 21uf, for a 3.5+uf cap. Polycaps resulted in a metallic sound. The 21uf caps were replaced with one 20uf and a 1uf polycap. Cheap caps, or the original ones, here made no audible difference to me.
The inductors for the midrange and tweeters were replaced with air core types. The original inductor for the bass was kept, but wire added to bring it to spec.
I found that ordering the inductors at a few higher mH's allowed me to fine tune them by unwinding and cutting them.
I added polyswitches to the tweeter and midrange speakers for protection.
To me, sound quality is much improved in that the bass is now present, deep and that the highs are now clear and vivid.
The midrange sound could see improvement. I'll be trying super caps of of pricier variety.
These are my further observations: Ensuring that the bass inductor is at 5mH and that the bass caps are at 47uf, BROUGHT OUT THE BASS! The bass can overshadow the highs, though. Cheap poly caps can be used to create the 47uf. The electrolytic variety proved ineffective.
Replacing the 2.7uf tweeter cap and bringing it up to 2.8uf(used a 2.7uf Mundorf evo oil and added a .1uf poly cap) brought it to life. Keeping it at 2.7uf resulted in less brightness. Cheap caps are not advisable here. The use of polycaps here was not effective(metallic sound).
The midrange 3.5uf cap was reading 4.5uf and was replaced with one of the same caps from the row which make- up the 21uf, for a 3.5+uf cap. Polycaps resulted in a metallic sound. The 21uf caps were replaced with one 20uf and a 1uf polycap. Cheap caps, or the original ones, here made no audible difference to me.
The inductors for the midrange and tweeters were replaced with air core types. The original inductor for the bass was kept, but wire added to bring it to spec.
I found that ordering the inductors at a few higher mH's allowed me to fine tune them by unwinding and cutting them.
I added polyswitches to the tweeter and midrange speakers for protection.
To me, sound quality is much improved in that the bass is now present, deep and that the highs are now clear and vivid.
The midrange sound could see improvement. I'll be trying super caps of of pricier variety.
Yamaha ns 1000 inductors, caps
I found all the inductors out of spec.-.27, 2.16, .39, 4.16 mH. Was Yamaha trying to save $; as I doubt inductors wear down with time? I found an article online about positioning the inductors, so to reduce crosstalk, noise, etc... Replacing the inductors with spec'ed ones, improved the sound substantially to me. The 5 mH inductor is tied in to the midrange, through the mb.
I isolated a 3.5 uf cap from the 6 on the crossover and I'm using it for the midrange. It sounds to me more natural than the poly caps. The 21 uf midrange caps were replaced with 21uf poly cap.
All testing done while listening to miles davis, john coltrane, classical, and other soft sounds.
I found all the inductors out of spec.-.27, 2.16, .39, 4.16 mH. Was Yamaha trying to save $; as I doubt inductors wear down with time? I found an article online about positioning the inductors, so to reduce crosstalk, noise, etc... Replacing the inductors with spec'ed ones, improved the sound substantially to me. The 5 mH inductor is tied in to the midrange, through the mb.
I isolated a 3.5 uf cap from the 6 on the crossover and I'm using it for the midrange. It sounds to me more natural than the poly caps. The 21 uf midrange caps were replaced with 21uf poly cap.
All testing done while listening to miles davis, john coltrane, classical, and other soft sounds.
Hi,
I use software called Boxsim to simulate things. The response is not exactly what I measure, but I don’t have an anechoic chamber eather. The simulation shows me if going from 5 mH to a practical 4,7 mH for the low-pass at the woofer makes a real big difference. You can experiment with that. With the 4,7 mH, 92 uF across is needed, together with an impedance flattener that contains of 4 Ohm - 1000 uF - 15 mH/4,5Ohm. Or go 3rd order like Troels did (I had that before, that works too).
I designed the anti-resonance circuit over the tweeter output of the crossover at around 2,4 K. That makes a very audible difference, the highs are, as expected, more silky. It contains 3,3 Ohm - 4,7 uF - 1,0 mH/0,53Ohm.
I’m also planning to replace the L-pad by an autoformer but this demands a whole new crossover since the L-pad resistance damps a lot of the driver resonance.
I use software called Boxsim to simulate things. The response is not exactly what I measure, but I don’t have an anechoic chamber eather. The simulation shows me if going from 5 mH to a practical 4,7 mH for the low-pass at the woofer makes a real big difference. You can experiment with that. With the 4,7 mH, 92 uF across is needed, together with an impedance flattener that contains of 4 Ohm - 1000 uF - 15 mH/4,5Ohm. Or go 3rd order like Troels did (I had that before, that works too).
I designed the anti-resonance circuit over the tweeter output of the crossover at around 2,4 K. That makes a very audible difference, the highs are, as expected, more silky. It contains 3,3 Ohm - 4,7 uF - 1,0 mH/0,53Ohm.
I’m also planning to replace the L-pad by an autoformer but this demands a whole new crossover since the L-pad resistance damps a lot of the driver resonance.
Post #500 is a happy 2019 for all of you here!
I now run the mids and highs from a very good Jabo.speakers autoformer (199,- a pair on eBay). The sound is more clear, transparant and detailed than ever with a new layer of reverb and depth. This is the best upgrade since the tweeter cap but requires new x-overs:
I now run the mids and highs from a very good Jabo.speakers autoformer (199,- a pair on eBay). The sound is more clear, transparant and detailed than ever with a new layer of reverb and depth. This is the best upgrade since the tweeter cap but requires new x-overs: