Thanks Chris,
Many things can be manufactured on the same equipment but be different......better raw materials,better qc, etc....
I believe jantzen is able to rest on their laurels when it comes to qc. There is obvious differences when compared with the Dayton ‘standby’ caps. But that’s subjective and neither here nor there.
Bob
Many things can be manufactured on the same equipment but be different......better raw materials,better qc, etc....
I believe jantzen is able to rest on their laurels when it comes to qc. There is obvious differences when compared with the Dayton ‘standby’ caps. But that’s subjective and neither here nor there.
Bob
Hi Bob,
Yes, but the caps you have just compared them to might be the same quality, or worse, or better. You would have to test them in order to know for certain.
I have tested all kinds of audiophile approved capacitors over the years, and some of teh expensive ones were actually pretty poor performers. Mostly, these capacitors are normal in every respect, but they build them to a much higher voltage rating and claim a lower voltage rating. That's fine, except that often they do not fit where the original was. That can be a problem in electronic circuits, not so much in a crossover.
The upshot of this is that you can buy industrial capacitors that are every bit as good and maybe better for less money. Too bad there is a perception that a larger and more expensive part is better when sometimes the reverse is true.
QC won't be any different for the audio capacitor. Maybe even less inspection. The costs of an industrial part being bad or off value is enormous compare to a stereo system. You want to believe that careful QC is in place for industrial parts that could find their way into production machines, aviation and medical devices. Take your pick. So you are dealing with the costs of failure here, and audio has almost zero cost of defects.
-Chris
Yes, but the caps you have just compared them to might be the same quality, or worse, or better. You would have to test them in order to know for certain.
I have tested all kinds of audiophile approved capacitors over the years, and some of teh expensive ones were actually pretty poor performers. Mostly, these capacitors are normal in every respect, but they build them to a much higher voltage rating and claim a lower voltage rating. That's fine, except that often they do not fit where the original was. That can be a problem in electronic circuits, not so much in a crossover.
The upshot of this is that you can buy industrial capacitors that are every bit as good and maybe better for less money. Too bad there is a perception that a larger and more expensive part is better when sometimes the reverse is true.
Likely not. A production run is thousands of units or it isn't worth hitting the "go" button on the machine. Especially when you have to run a pre-production run to set the machine up.
QC won't be any different for the audio capacitor. Maybe even less inspection. The costs of an industrial part being bad or off value is enormous compare to a stereo system. You want to believe that careful QC is in place for industrial parts that could find their way into production machines, aviation and medical devices. Take your pick. So you are dealing with the costs of failure here, and audio has almost zero cost of defects.
-Chris
Is the tweeter comb filtering something you are measuring or hearing?
There should be more threads on finds, recommendations. I'ts possible to find near perfect for application coupling, bypass, pulse etc. caps. Set and forget.
Chris,
likely....maybe....we're Both making assumptions.
in my earlier yrs I jumped around as a millright in many different manufacturing plants......i can tell you that more effort did indeed go into a production run if specified.
Matt, based on hearing......theres a distinct 3 lobe pattern when you scan my precision stereo test mics (ears) across @ 1 meter.
likely....maybe....we're Both making assumptions.
in my earlier yrs I jumped around as a millright in many different manufacturing plants......i can tell you that more effort did indeed go into a production run if specified.
Matt, based on hearing......theres a distinct 3 lobe pattern when you scan my precision stereo test mics (ears) across @ 1 meter.
At what frequency?Matt, based on hearing......theres a distinct 3 lobe pattern when you scan my precision stereo test mics (ears) across @ 1 meter.
Will your end use application require same response both sitting and standing?Chris,
likely....maybe....we're Both making assumptions.
in my earlier yrs I jumped around as a millright in many different manufacturing plants......i can tell you that more effort did indeed go into a production run if specified.
Matt, based on hearing......theres a distinct 3 lobe pattern when you scan my precision stereo test mics (ears) across @ 1 meter.
If not, put them one over the other.
Jn
Who says goldenear audio actually PAY for higher quality vs getting a bling gold name printed on the part in 4pt lettering? Luckily for them audiophiles love capacitors the size of cans of bud.
Hand made is another red flag. A person is not likely to be able to wind a capacitor as well as a machine on a 100k piece run. Beeswax, cervit droppings, gloop or floopy dust are also signs its likely to not be as good as a part from mouser.
I suppose I could pan around it with the mic to see.....but it seems like across the board.
jn,
my current baffles won't allow it but yah I know that's preferable.
bill,
this goldenear can hear the difference!
Jantzen is well enough accepted as a better quality and from what I can tell its not just smoke amd mirrors.
And I dont mind spending a little extra for the bling......my next build is gonna be external (visable)
Last edited:
Death...huh??? There is nothing obscure 'going on' that would render my explanation insufficient, and you failed to point out any such error. Sure we can 'calc' amplitude and phase response (???), but this was about whether the output follows current or voltage more directly and accurately; so if and when e.g. there are considerable nonlinearities in the inductance, the difference is very obvious.jneutron said:
Sorry, "death of us" is a colloquialism on this side of the pond.
Ah, there's the disconnect. I was not discussing whether the output "follows current or voltage".
In my world, I lump voltage generated by all time varying flux through the vc..or more accurately, energy transference between the output of the amp, and all the energy storage mechanisms of the speaker. As well, all the storage mechanisms that are modulated by position, velocity, acceleration, and amplitude.
It is equally acceptable to call it a current driven device with voltage errors as it is voltage driven device with current errors. I choose voltage driven as that is what 90 plus percent (this is a guess of course, I do not know how accurate it is) of all amplifiers on the planet do.
To wit...when a speaker is measured for inductance from 20hz to 2 kHz through resonance free air, one can easily measure negative inductance. A simple consequence of the meter's inability to interpret the motional energy return of the driver...and Rs, the meter interpreting all losses as resistive despite it being the sum of eddy loss, eddy drag, proximity,conversion loss, and even wire resistance.
So really, we are not disagreeing but have different endgames. While voltage drive rules the planet, I would prefer something closer to your neck of the woods, hence my question to you that you did not answer.
Jn
Last edited:
Odd, comb filtering should vary with frequency. It's probable that you are only hearing it at lower frequencies. How close together are the tweeters? It could also be that the crossover is now skewed.
Some info here on the audibility of comb filtering Comb Filtering, Acoustical Interference, & Power Response in Loudspeakers | Audioholics
Last edited:
John, do you mean a voice coil inductance or just some "inductance" (covering mechanical side)? A voice coil inductance is nonlinear and is a function current, excursion and frequency. However I do not think it gets negative.
Attachments
I mean what the meter reports. Phase crosses zero at resonance, and some meters will do the absolute value of the lead/lag, others will report negative inductance. But it is a different energy storage mechanism, just coupled to the electrical one. So yes, covering the mechanical side as you say.
Jn
Ps. Thank you to the mod for fixing my post of last night. My IPad was behaving quite badly and I was having a heck of a time completing the post. Thanks again.
Jn
Ps. Thank you to the mod for fixing my post of last night. My IPad was behaving quite badly and I was having a heck of a time completing the post. Thanks again.
Last edited:
Jn
Been thinking about the discussion with Esa...
Assuming phase response is different V drive vs I drive, does anybody do final mix down with current driven monitors? If so, does anybody know if soundstage imaging differences occur as a result?
Are the two fully compatible? IOW, given a final product done both ways, is the imaging identical?
Jn
roughly 6" apart.....they are inverted domes which have a odd dispersion to the outsides.....maybe that has something to do with the new W dispersion pattern.
Is that a reasonable assumption, or a measured result?
To borrow JR's imprecise language, a voltage source amplifier "relinquishes control" of current, which is determined by the load impedance. Surely a current source amplifier "relinquishes control" of voltage, which is determined again by the load impedance. Assuming an inductive load, why would the I vs V phase relationship be any different in one case than the other? Surely the inductance defines that phase relationship in both cases?
There is no different overall phase response -- and no magnitude response as well -- with change of drive impedance, for the simple fact that we are to compare a speakers output with the drive impedance changed as the only variable. SPL mag and phase response has to be dialed in by EQ to be the same, as a very basic prerequisite.
It may sound trivial but it is a core issue to understand that the physical properties of the driver itself do not change, therefore the exact same responses for both driver terminal voltage and VC current are seen regardless of drive impedance once the SPL output is the same as per prerequisite for a meaningful comparison... matching better than to first order, easily.
Below that, in the "<3%"-domain, we see a change in the fineprint in distortion (both in the SPL output vs. drive scheme and electrical distortion of the current when controlling the voltage and vice versa), and different recovery and large-signal behaviour etc.
Further it is helpful to think in effective termination impedance Z_eff of the idealized VC (no wire resistance and static coil inductance) rather than source impedance alone. From this, we se the Z_drive=0 characterstic is nothing special at all, actually a very intermediate case of drive.
Corner case is Z_eff="+0", that is Z_drive = -(Re+Le) + epsilon. That's "full velocity control" where the controlled quantity -- controlled via strong local feedback -- is very dominantly the back-EMF which is a measure of velocity (with issues in doing that, though). What happens to the SPL transfer charactersitic is a sort of pole splitting, the -6dB/oct velocity slope region becoming significantly enlarged, flanked by a real pole on either side. The feedback makes any BL distortion re-entrant as the back-EMF is used directly as sensor voltage.
The other, less sharp corner point is when Z_drive >> Re+Le. This is the "fully force-controlled region" via F=BL*i, the back-EMF is totaly discarded, does not enter the equations. The poles move together and become a complex pole with the associated rise of the 2nd order highpass response Q with no other than mechanical damping. BL distortion is seen in the ouput (the force on the cone not being linear) but does not re-enter the scenario.
The point now is to realize in this whole drive impedance discussion that we can quite freely shape the driver's operation point, the amount of feedback, even frequency dependant, and that this shaping can render a better overall result than the Z_drive=0 (or at least << Re) condition that was assumd for the driver's development and typical use case.
It may sound trivial but it is a core issue to understand that the physical properties of the driver itself do not change, therefore the exact same responses for both driver terminal voltage and VC current are seen regardless of drive impedance once the SPL output is the same as per prerequisite for a meaningful comparison... matching better than to first order, easily.
Below that, in the "<3%"-domain, we see a change in the fineprint in distortion (both in the SPL output vs. drive scheme and electrical distortion of the current when controlling the voltage and vice versa), and different recovery and large-signal behaviour etc.
Further it is helpful to think in effective termination impedance Z_eff of the idealized VC (no wire resistance and static coil inductance) rather than source impedance alone. From this, we se the Z_drive=0 characterstic is nothing special at all, actually a very intermediate case of drive.
Corner case is Z_eff="+0", that is Z_drive = -(Re+Le) + epsilon. That's "full velocity control" where the controlled quantity -- controlled via strong local feedback -- is very dominantly the back-EMF which is a measure of velocity (with issues in doing that, though). What happens to the SPL transfer charactersitic is a sort of pole splitting, the -6dB/oct velocity slope region becoming significantly enlarged, flanked by a real pole on either side. The feedback makes any BL distortion re-entrant as the back-EMF is used directly as sensor voltage.
The other, less sharp corner point is when Z_drive >> Re+Le. This is the "fully force-controlled region" via F=BL*i, the back-EMF is totaly discarded, does not enter the equations. The poles move together and become a complex pole with the associated rise of the 2nd order highpass response Q with no other than mechanical damping. BL distortion is seen in the ouput (the force on the cone not being linear) but does not re-enter the scenario.
The point now is to realize in this whole drive impedance discussion that we can quite freely shape the driver's operation point, the amount of feedback, even frequency dependant, and that this shaping can render a better overall result than the Z_drive=0 (or at least << Re) condition that was assumd for the driver's development and typical use case.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.