I've never came across a Technics speaker system that ever needed help or improvement in the inductor department.
Technics didn't mess around in their designing, particularly in their better products.
Technics didn't mess around in their designing, particularly in their better products.
There is an underlying sentiment that there is not a great deal to be gained from spending much in the coil department.. but also that there may be some minor unexpected changes if you do.
Regarding the orientation, it's clear that there is a benefit to keeping it simple, but that doesn't necessarily mean they didn't consider, or even measure coil interaction.
Regarding the orientation, it's clear that there is a benefit to keeping it simple, but that doesn't necessarily mean they didn't consider, or even measure coil interaction.
It's difficult to tell if it'll be an improvement or not.
From my own experience with the cap change from bipolar electrolytics to poly on my own Technics and the Wharfedale i talked about in the other thread i've had mixed results: in both case the sound gained in 'clarity' but it wasn't an improvement for my own preference ( the Wharfedale was modified by someone else before landing in my hands).
For the Technics as i was looking to 'improve' them by modifying the filter completly ( changing xover freq points and filter type) i used low cost poly to 'redo' the original filter without electrolytics so maybe this was the reason. But i quickly switched to dsp and multiamp ( with only a big film cap on tweeter - well outside it's usable range for protection and nothing other than wire between drivers and amps) so can't tell more about it.
About the Wharfedale the results of the previous cap update didn't pleased the owner and she asked to change it. I reversed to bypolar and their was more overall coherency but less 'details'. She prefered it as i did.
That said as you'll have to use new inductors too ( keep them as original as possible for not loose on potential resale value) it'll be like rebuild a new filter so results could be way better and indeed an improvement.
Another thing i discovered with mine: they were developed to be located onwall. Iow there was no BSC and they greatly improved from implementing it.
Of course they are different loudspeakers but maybe others could tell you if it is implemented or not in yours. If not the E100 would need to have it centered around 221hz.
From my own experience with the cap change from bipolar electrolytics to poly on my own Technics and the Wharfedale i talked about in the other thread i've had mixed results: in both case the sound gained in 'clarity' but it wasn't an improvement for my own preference ( the Wharfedale was modified by someone else before landing in my hands).
For the Technics as i was looking to 'improve' them by modifying the filter completly ( changing xover freq points and filter type) i used low cost poly to 'redo' the original filter without electrolytics so maybe this was the reason. But i quickly switched to dsp and multiamp ( with only a big film cap on tweeter - well outside it's usable range for protection and nothing other than wire between drivers and amps) so can't tell more about it.
About the Wharfedale the results of the previous cap update didn't pleased the owner and she asked to change it. I reversed to bypolar and their was more overall coherency but less 'details'. She prefered it as i did.
That said as you'll have to use new inductors too ( keep them as original as possible for not loose on potential resale value) it'll be like rebuild a new filter so results could be way better and indeed an improvement.
Another thing i discovered with mine: they were developed to be located onwall. Iow there was no BSC and they greatly improved from implementing it.
Of course they are different loudspeakers but maybe others could tell you if it is implemented or not in yours. If not the E100 would need to have it centered around 221hz.
Last edited:
Hi W.
Just wishing to maintain the excellent work Technics put into their Inductor design.
As I'll be keeping the existing crossover original, new Inductors are necessary in building parallel crossover set up.
Just need to work towards maintaining Inductor performance as a minimum, in order to gain improvement in the capacitor area
If I can improve it (inductor placement, better quality inductors etc) for little extra cost then that would be a bonus.
.
I'd hate to go backwards.
Honestly i can't say: passive filter developement is not something i master at all. Too much interactions between components for me ( i'm not patient enough) and i'm better at taking measurements and dial things up on a machine. One have to know his limits.
But i'm sure you'll find help needed here.
But i'm sure you'll find help needed here.
To answer that question it could be necessary to address the elephant in the room, which is whether the values, and the circuit are achieving the most for this configuration. A crossover re-design. The answer is another question.. do you have the time and budget to find out for yourself?
Hi A B.
I'm treating this upgrade attempt for a friend as a hobby, not for financial gain.
I'm mindful and concerned that I don't impose on forum members who assist me.
I suspect, part of the answer is to be able to measure performance by recording output and analyzing the resultant graphs, something beyond my expertise and resource equipment wise.
I was hoping it was going to be relatively simple by maintaining cap and inductor values but just modernizing (poly in place of electrolytic etc).
I suppose, based on comments so far, yielding sound improvement mightn't eventuate.
I'm treating this upgrade attempt for a friend as a hobby, not for financial gain.
I'm mindful and concerned that I don't impose on forum members who assist me.
I suspect, part of the answer is to be able to measure performance by recording output and analyzing the resultant graphs, something beyond my expertise and resource equipment wise.
I was hoping it was going to be relatively simple by maintaining cap and inductor values but just modernizing (poly in place of electrolytic etc).
I suppose, based on comments so far, yielding sound improvement mightn't eventuate.
I don't think I was saying that, just outlining a little perspective since you asked the "million dollar question" 😀
This pursuit can have various beneficial outcomes. Maybe you replace a damaged component, a dry capacitor, a microphonic inductor or a poorly specified original component. Also possible is that you make an unintended change and it sounds like something.
The difference is that if the circuit itself is off, you can't get much better than that.
If I might make a suggestion on the easier way to tell if your crossover can be improved, get yourself an equaliser, and tweak it by ear for an extended period with every flaw you can hear. Try not to get carried away with the minor variations between songs, but listen to different things all the same. If you are unable to make your system sound like the real thing, start looking at your speaker acoustic configuration, your dividing networks and your room.
This pursuit can have various beneficial outcomes. Maybe you replace a damaged component, a dry capacitor, a microphonic inductor or a poorly specified original component. Also possible is that you make an unintended change and it sounds like something.
The difference is that if the circuit itself is off, you can't get much better than that.
If I might make a suggestion on the easier way to tell if your crossover can be improved, get yourself an equaliser, and tweak it by ear for an extended period with every flaw you can hear. Try not to get carried away with the minor variations between songs, but listen to different things all the same. If you are unable to make your system sound like the real thing, start looking at your speaker acoustic configuration, your dividing networks and your room.
According to Technics:
Linear Phase Network
Linear phase characteristics are obtained by a dividing network combining 12 dB/oct and inductive M types, thus making reliable transfer of waves possible. Also, low-distortion filament cores are employed for choke coils.
Thanks.
Does this mean that it would be difficult to reproduce without knowing the engineering behind the initial design?
Also sounds like the parts bolted through the Inductors are part of the design?
What does 12 dB/oct and inductive M types mean?
Does this mean that it would be difficult to reproduce without knowing the engineering behind the initial design?
Also sounds like the parts bolted through the Inductors are part of the design?
What does 12 dB/oct and inductive M types mean?
Not nescessarely difficult but it'll implies some educated guesswork.
Type M i don't know what it means. 12db/oct define one of the parameters of the filters implemented.
Linear Phase (for Technics at that period of time) meant the emissive points of the differents drivers are aligned on a vertical axe- or that the filter topology used would take care/be a part of this alignement.
It was one of the mantra of that time for Technics. Yours ( and mine) was designed before Linkwitz/Riley filter became more or less the standard practice about filters. In a way this implies implementing LR crossover type could be easier ( as drivers are already aligned which is a requirement for LR types).
Cliff don't worry about imposing yourself on members here, if they are here it is to learn and help. This is the implicit deal for most of members participating.
I would ad to Allen's answer that one of the outcome ( if you go the way to redo a filter design) is gaining knowledge and understanding on how loudspeakers works.
It is complicated as it involve electronics, electroacoustic, engineering knowledge on how things are built and why, etc,etc,etc,... and all parameters interacts one way or another.
At first it is daunting and frustrating but as you learn more and more most of us find it fascinating as there is many ways to achieves some goals sometimes oposed,....
In other word if you want to take that way be prepared for commitment to it, being tenacious and learn about many fields. It can be time consuming and at one point or another you'll have to invest in gear ( mic, soundcard and computer dedicated seems a minimum to me) learn how to use it,...
Type M i don't know what it means. 12db/oct define one of the parameters of the filters implemented.
Linear Phase (for Technics at that period of time) meant the emissive points of the differents drivers are aligned on a vertical axe- or that the filter topology used would take care/be a part of this alignement.
It was one of the mantra of that time for Technics. Yours ( and mine) was designed before Linkwitz/Riley filter became more or less the standard practice about filters. In a way this implies implementing LR crossover type could be easier ( as drivers are already aligned which is a requirement for LR types).
Cliff don't worry about imposing yourself on members here, if they are here it is to learn and help. This is the implicit deal for most of members participating.
I would ad to Allen's answer that one of the outcome ( if you go the way to redo a filter design) is gaining knowledge and understanding on how loudspeakers works.
It is complicated as it involve electronics, electroacoustic, engineering knowledge on how things are built and why, etc,etc,etc,... and all parameters interacts one way or another.
At first it is daunting and frustrating but as you learn more and more most of us find it fascinating as there is many ways to achieves some goals sometimes oposed,....
In other word if you want to take that way be prepared for commitment to it, being tenacious and learn about many fields. It can be time consuming and at one point or another you'll have to invest in gear ( mic, soundcard and computer dedicated seems a minimum to me) learn how to use it,...
Last edited:
I would ad to Allen's answer too that an eq could be a computer/multiple in/out soundcard with software ( second hand). Could bring same things ( even more powerfull in some ways) and others to the table too.
Worth it.
Worth it.
Yes but the important terms are time consuming ( there is a loooottt to read on different fields to have the basic and it only grew after as the more you know the more you need to know if you are curious) frustrating , tenacious and comitment. 😉
That said you are in the right place ( it had been to me for the last 12years or so). And you are lucky to be native english speaker! For us foreigners it often ad a frustration layer ( and slower learning curve)! 😀
That said you are in the right place ( it had been to me for the last 12years or so). And you are lucky to be native english speaker! For us foreigners it often ad a frustration layer ( and slower learning curve)! 😀
Last edited:
Your photograph shows a ferrite inductor. Loudspeaker Crossover Inductors and Coil Bobbins
Any contribution the bolt makes to the inductance is likely to be minimal.
Attachments
Cliff, allow me to expand on your requirements the way I see them. I have changed the order so that they flow better.
a. We can see one ferrite inductor, so know we should use a ferrite for the same function in your proposed external crossover. We would need to see the other inductors to choose electrically suitable partners for them. However, there can be no guarantee that our chosen inductors would improve the sound reproduction.
b. You would like the formal crossover schematic translated into a practical layout of components, so you can see clearly how to connect them all together to create your proposed external crossover.
c. You would like someone to colour code the wires that connect the external crossover to the input terminals and individual drivers, so you can make no mistakes in those connections.
If you agree with my take on your requirements, note that it is b. and c. that are the BIG ASK.
Is anyone up for the challenge?
Thanks Galu.
Well summarized.
The other Inductors were more difficult to photograph, but when I visually inspected them, apart from differing sizes, they all had that bobbin exterior and the screw shaft down their centre with a fastening nut at the top.
I'd say they're all iron core.
I know that high value iron core Inductors are smaller than Air core Inductors of the same value and more practical for this reason.
Aren't air core inductors superior to use than iron core, especially where higher sound frequencies are handled?
Also aren't iron core inductors often selected by manufacturers over air core in order to keep costs down?
Regarding b & c, this needn't be an issue for forum members.
With guidance I could draw up a prototype design and do all the leg work and post it for comment.
If I could leverage your knowledge with:
I understand that the end result might end up being better, or being worse sound, or being different.
I think money wise we're talking about AUD$250 for caps and inductors.
I'd be interested in your opinion on whether you feel this exercise is worthwhile.
Cheers
Cliff
Well summarized.
The other Inductors were more difficult to photograph, but when I visually inspected them, apart from differing sizes, they all had that bobbin exterior and the screw shaft down their centre with a fastening nut at the top.
I'd say they're all iron core.
I know that high value iron core Inductors are smaller than Air core Inductors of the same value and more practical for this reason.
Aren't air core inductors superior to use than iron core, especially where higher sound frequencies are handled?
Also aren't iron core inductors often selected by manufacturers over air core in order to keep costs down?
Regarding b & c, this needn't be an issue for forum members.
With guidance I could draw up a prototype design and do all the leg work and post it for comment.
If I could leverage your knowledge with:
- Build rules (example, if a driver is serviced by both a poly and inductor which comes before the other in the circuit and are inductors polarity conscious).
- Understanding the existing build (example, we have the parts list, which parts are for which driver etc).
- Wire color convention (example are certain colors reserved for driver types including polarity).
I understand that the end result might end up being better, or being worse sound, or being different.
I think money wise we're talking about AUD$250 for caps and inductors.
I'd be interested in your opinion on whether you feel this exercise is worthwhile.
Cheers
Cliff
Last edited:
Hi,
Inductors are not polarity conscious ( there is not so many passive parts which are - except regular electrolytics capacitors and diodes- and if they are manufacturers will tell it explicitely).
To understand the existing filter circuit you'll absolutely need to take into account the driver behavior into the equation ( electrically and acousticaly). As already stated in loudspeaker's passive filters everything interact. This is at electrical level but once you have multiple drivers there is interactions too at acoustical level ( their location on the system, their shape and type, the box shape,... everything interact more or less) and this can lead to destructive or additive behavior frequency wise, weird behavior about the directivity, etc,etc...
This will require some gear to acquire electrical and acoustical properties then modeling through a software like Xsim, then to fine tune the results afterward with the real thing in place.
There is no wire colour code convention ( except the red:+, black:-, but in case of multiple drivers there is none) but you could either make your own and have it stated somewhere user can read it ( however this won't garantee you to meet a punk which make a point to not follow rules whatever they are and their outcome 🙂 ) or use a kind of connector which is multi point like the ones used in proworld ( something like Edac). That said you'll need to ckeck they will withstand the condition without start a fire ( amperage and voltage).
Will it be worthwhile?
From your knowledge pov yes. Definitely.
Will there be a gain in sound quality IF you keep the same type of filter architecture will have to be verified once done.
If you change the type of filters and use different slope ( steeper or softer) and aproach ( make them Linkwitz Riley as example) there will be enough difference with the original as they'll probably sound really different as outcome. Will it be better or not will depend from preference ( and compromise as there is few 'absolute' better in loudspeakers, this is an 'art' of compromise each way you take) so it is difficult to say.
That is why everybody is cautious in theyr answer to you.
From my own pov and if this is something you plan to redo in future i would think about investing in a couple of small and cheap poweramps and something like a behringer Dcx ( a loudspeaker management box including eq capabilitys, multiple xover you can change at will and other goodies like delay).
It will give the opportunity to try many filter types easily ( to hear if one solution fits better than another in the cases you'll face) and then go the passive route afterward ( if this is what you want) knowing what to expect as outcome.
A pc with multiple in/out soundcards could be an option too but it'll require a bit of investissement in time and setup ( iow it'll be less user friendly than a dedicated unit) and open for other things too.
Can seem a bit of money but once you'll have redone 3 or 4 passive filter the digital solution will seems cheap in comparison( not taking time into account where it i'll be cheaper overall after the first redo).
Of course this is a pov and can be discussed. 😉
Inductors are not polarity conscious ( there is not so many passive parts which are - except regular electrolytics capacitors and diodes- and if they are manufacturers will tell it explicitely).
To understand the existing filter circuit you'll absolutely need to take into account the driver behavior into the equation ( electrically and acousticaly). As already stated in loudspeaker's passive filters everything interact. This is at electrical level but once you have multiple drivers there is interactions too at acoustical level ( their location on the system, their shape and type, the box shape,... everything interact more or less) and this can lead to destructive or additive behavior frequency wise, weird behavior about the directivity, etc,etc...
This will require some gear to acquire electrical and acoustical properties then modeling through a software like Xsim, then to fine tune the results afterward with the real thing in place.
There is no wire colour code convention ( except the red:+, black:-, but in case of multiple drivers there is none) but you could either make your own and have it stated somewhere user can read it ( however this won't garantee you to meet a punk which make a point to not follow rules whatever they are and their outcome 🙂 ) or use a kind of connector which is multi point like the ones used in proworld ( something like Edac). That said you'll need to ckeck they will withstand the condition without start a fire ( amperage and voltage).
Will it be worthwhile?
From your knowledge pov yes. Definitely.
Will there be a gain in sound quality IF you keep the same type of filter architecture will have to be verified once done.
If you change the type of filters and use different slope ( steeper or softer) and aproach ( make them Linkwitz Riley as example) there will be enough difference with the original as they'll probably sound really different as outcome. Will it be better or not will depend from preference ( and compromise as there is few 'absolute' better in loudspeakers, this is an 'art' of compromise each way you take) so it is difficult to say.
That is why everybody is cautious in theyr answer to you.
From my own pov and if this is something you plan to redo in future i would think about investing in a couple of small and cheap poweramps and something like a behringer Dcx ( a loudspeaker management box including eq capabilitys, multiple xover you can change at will and other goodies like delay).
It will give the opportunity to try many filter types easily ( to hear if one solution fits better than another in the cases you'll face) and then go the passive route afterward ( if this is what you want) knowing what to expect as outcome.
A pc with multiple in/out soundcards could be an option too but it'll require a bit of investissement in time and setup ( iow it'll be less user friendly than a dedicated unit) and open for other things too.
Can seem a bit of money but once you'll have redone 3 or 4 passive filter the digital solution will seems cheap in comparison( not taking time into account where it i'll be cheaper overall after the first redo).
Of course this is a pov and can be discussed. 😉
Last edited: