Pietro, it can be worse
Liddell & Scott lexicon lists 58 different meanings recorded in the Greek classic literature for the “para” prefix (sounds Greek to you?)
Thank you Allen
George
Attachments
Pietro, it can be worse
Anyway, I did not find schematics of SF systems that claim to have paracross topology crossover, for checking if they all use inductor in parallel with medium or tweeter.
Last edited:
In my information , the "Paracross topology" they called is that the in-serial cap near to the tweeter is placed at opposite side.(3rd order electrical HIPASS)
You can see the following pamphlet brochure from the Japan dealer of Sonus Faber
http://www.noahcorporation.com/sonusfaber/catalog_HomageTra.pdf
You can see the following pamphlet brochure from the Japan dealer of Sonus Faber
http://www.noahcorporation.com/sonusfaber/catalog_HomageTra.pdf
If kevinlin1013 is correct, then what I suspected from the beginning was correct. It's basically a marketing ploy. But it's still interesting why would they put the cap in series below the tweeter? Is there any real advantage? Although I am not sure why would they go out of there way to put a cap there and not at its normal place which is after the inductor? Would they do that just to satisfy the marketing guy?
Like I said, Sonus Fabers know their customers ... beauty and the bucks. We americans have the saying "no buck no buck rogers". I guess Sonus Fabers would be something like "no beauty no buck".
Like I said, Sonus Fabers know their customers ... beauty and the bucks. We americans have the saying "no buck no buck rogers". I guess Sonus Fabers would be something like "no beauty no buck".
Electrically the placement of the capacitor should make no difference.
As to the shunt inductor, this is half of a full series XO, low R in the inductor is usually specified as very necessary.
And as to just using a shunt inductor on the tweeter this is something i have seen a lot in German late 50s-1960s consoles.
dave
Exactly! If we see the cap+tweeter as one component , it just shunted with the coil whatever the cap was at which side.
Every brand of commercial speaker needs some sell slogans so I will not blame it too much. In fact the new Sonus Faber has more serious engineering than old one IMO.
(But I also do not deny the sense of sound and contribution by Franco Serblin)
I may to disagree with that especially a brand with that much history and tradition as Sonus Fabers. It's sort of cheapen their image. If it's an isolated marketing thing, then I guess it's not going to be a problem, but if they start letting their marketing department doing blatant claims at the expense of engineering integrity, then their customers base may abandon them. But of course if the engineering and manufacturing departments are able to create beautiful and good sounding speakers, then there are certain things they can get away with.
I don't see any blatant claims, just a few invented marketing phrases to make it sound impressive. Audio is hardly alone in this -witness BMW calling four-wheel-drive 'xDrive' for instance. Same thing. Been done since time immemorial, & like it or not, that's not going to change.
Sonus have been making marketing terms out of simple features for some time. Paracross is one. 'Stealth Reflex' (aka a reflex duct lined with some damping material) is another. WRT parallel crossovers the components can be in either leg (or both), providing the order in which they occur is not changed. ProAc have always put series components in the negative leg for example. A few DIYers do the same, or place them in both, if for whatever reason it makes component layout easier on a PCB or whatever they happen to be mounted to.
Sonus have been making marketing terms out of simple features for some time. Paracross is one. 'Stealth Reflex' (aka a reflex duct lined with some damping material) is another. WRT parallel crossovers the components can be in either leg (or both), providing the order in which they occur is not changed. ProAc have always put series components in the negative leg for example. A few DIYers do the same, or place them in both, if for whatever reason it makes component layout easier on a PCB or whatever they happen to be mounted to.
Last night I thought about it after a glass of brandy and there may be something to it other than just a cheap marketing ploy concocted by a couple of Sonus Fabers guys after having a few drinks. There could be a case made why putting a cap after the driver may help. I actually tried to post it last night at home but my wifi connection just happened to go kaput just when I was posting the article.
The square root of jack for the transfer functions or 'sound'. It's a parallel circuit & an AC signal. It may have some practical value in terms of convenient PCB layout. Nothing acoustic.
I am not sure what you meant by "square root of jack". "AC signal" could mean a lot of things. Once I have time and my wifi is properly working, I'll post my opinion on it and it's not just convenient, it could have affect on the signal.
The square root of jack = jack ****. Bugger all. Nothing. Zero. Zilch.
AC mean a lot of things? As far as this is concerned the only thing it means (or matters) is that the signal is not DC. It alternates. Ergo it makes no difference whether the component is in either leg, providing the circuit order & its position is maintained.
AC mean a lot of things? As far as this is concerned the only thing it means (or matters) is that the signal is not DC. It alternates. Ergo it makes no difference whether the component is in either leg, providing the circuit order & its position is maintained.
Last edited:
It's true only in PSpice discrete component analysis, but you have to realize the real world is not discrete component but more like Maxwell equation in a 3d space.
Which PSpice individual component analysis would that be? I don't recall anybody mentioning those here; last I checked we were talking about circuits.
It is a parallel crossover. You have an audio signal (alternating current) applied. What, specifically, are you claiming this alleged difference is supposed to be if the series component happen to be plonked into one leg or other, providing the order is maintained? Are you saying, for example, capacitor ESR will magically vanish if it happens to be placed in the negative leg, and that the driver will see some pristine, uncorrupted signal, despite the fact that we are dealing with AC and that it is therefore as much in the circuit there as it is in the positive?
It is a parallel crossover. You have an audio signal (alternating current) applied. What, specifically, are you claiming this alleged difference is supposed to be if the series component
Here is my thinking although it could be right or wrong so it’s up to you to believe me or not.
I think simulation such as XSim probably uses some type of Spice discrete component analysis which is a 2 dimensional voltage/time so it can only calculate voltage/time at discrete point in the circuit. This type of analysis is prevalent during the 70's since that was probably good enough. Four accurate analysis the demand now is moving into 3D analysis or 4D if you account for time.
You have to realize that our concept of discrete component do not exist in the real world. The concept of ESR, parasitic are our way to encapsulate certain real world phenomena so that we can make simple 2D simulation which in most cases are accurate enough and good enough. The real world does not care about inductor, capacitor, resistor. Those are just our way of describing the world so. You draw up a circuit in a symbolic way, but in the real world, that circuit that you draw up is nothing but a collection of plastic, metal, poly cone material, magnets and so on … As the current flows, it does not care about inductor, capacitor, or resistor. It’s not like when the current flows, it goes “OK, here is a capacitor so I have to do this, and a shunt inductor so I have to do that, now I have to decides what to do if the cap before the driver or vice versa”.
The real world is governed by Maxwell equations (at least for the most part) describing how current and voltage behave in a 4D space time. A good example is a transmission line. As a signal travels down a transmission line, it loose energy due to various loses. When a signal loses its energy, the rise time suffer. If you have an infinite transmission line, the rise time will be zero at the end.
So initially when you launch a signal, it will have a good rise time, but after while traveling down the transmission line, its rise time will be less and less. So conceptually it’s better the place the speaker driver at the beginning of the transmission line and not near the end even though in Spice analysis a transmission line is just a short. But this short has detrimental affect on rise time that not accounted for in a discrete spice analysis.
Back to the xover case, we may think of it as just an xover, but it’s actually is a transmission line in a 4D space time. The signal from the amp will travel through it just like it would in a transmission line. The signal transient gets affected at every point of the xover. So it would make sense to put the driver as close to the source as possible so that it can absorb the transient before it gets lost to other stuffs, in this case it’s the capacitor in series.
Anyway, you could say spice 2D analysis is good enough and I am wrong but to me 4D makes more sense.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.