Dave A Posted February 22, 2019 Share Posted February 22, 2019 Yes It was just inside the speaker but the principle should still hold true with resistance. My primary reason for doing this was because I had read that it reduced electronic interference from drivers and other conductors in close proximity. I see no reason not to do it I just did not see any reason to do it either. I am interested in what happens with interference by the way. I bought a balanced 1/8" jack to dual xlr's to feed into my xilica. Since my S-MWM system is not ready to go yet I went ahead and ran it into my crown xli800 and there was a noticeable drop in hum over the cheapo 1/8 to RCA cable I had been using. I had a set of Fortes in the shop one day. I had never switched from the Forte to the MCM 1900 before and the guy wanted to hear them. We had the Fortes up pretty loud. Now when I plugged into the MCM it was more than loud. Same power supplied to both and the perceived sound level from the MCM's was far greater. I think the Forte needed that big wire more than the MCM did. The idea of twisting that you suggest does interest me though I just have not found a study that convinced me to do it. I completely understand tolerance stack up and have to deal with it in machining. As I get my system up and running I will in time try some of these things out. That comment makes sense and is why I am going with biamping and DSP for the first time. Cables will come later if at all. I get to a certain point I won't care about further improvement's anyway. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panelhead Posted February 22, 2019 Share Posted February 22, 2019 11 hours ago, Jeffrey D. Medwin said: Deang, Goodness, you are over - reacting I have NO interest in building crossovers for Joe Public. As you have, or will will find out, the public mostly The GTO I use is now built by Kemet, $50 or so a cap, 50 part minimum order. WIMA GTO, none in stock, special order. Jeff I checked the other day and Mouser shows stock in the 5 ufd,1500 volt dc, Wima GTO. Most values were out of stock. Looked them up to learn something. Not much gleaned from the spec sheets.Good to see the inductance and phase plot here. Reading here I saw that most members who mention speaker wire used larger ga than I do. I think the 16 ga in the Canare 4S8 is fine. But slept on this. Rather than chop off a couple 10’ sections of 4S11 I will connect the 4S8 as a quad. And whack off a couple sections of 4S6 for the mid/tweeter. The latest Klipschorns and La Scala’s have Star Quad wiring. It has better noise rejection than twisted pair construction. The Quad connected 4S6 is 17 ga. I like smaller ga wire. I fact just thinking about it makes me feel better. HAVE Inc has great prices on these. I think you have to order a 100’ of the 4S6. I purchased a 100’ to internally rewire my La Scala ii and Heresy iii. But once I saw how the wire attached to the crossover board in the LS ii backed off. I assumed posts or connectors. Not hardwired to the circuit board. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schu Posted February 22, 2019 Share Posted February 22, 2019 my popcorn has gone stale. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billybob Posted February 22, 2019 Share Posted February 22, 2019 Intermission 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave A Posted February 22, 2019 Share Posted February 22, 2019 29 minutes ago, Schu said: my popcorn has gone stale. Mine is getting there. The disconnect from reality is getting old fast. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave A Posted February 22, 2019 Share Posted February 22, 2019 1 hour ago, Jeffrey D. Medwin said: Differences in uF values of caps is very MINOR sonically, compared to the types used. Maybe a 10 to 1 sonic and importance difference between these two parameters. Caps that don't cut it sonically, don't ever stay intact in any "C" position, no matter how well they are matched. It takes $$$$ to bypass at a highest performance level, open up your wallets...IF you wanna do it right. And on that note I think I am done. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billybob Posted February 22, 2019 Share Posted February 22, 2019 Well, maybe the OP's question I hope has been answered...lol seriously Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babadono Posted February 22, 2019 Share Posted February 22, 2019 2 hours ago, Jeffrey D. Medwin said: Differences in uF values of caps is very MINOR sonically I can't not make a comment here. THE CAPACITANCE OF A CAPACITOR DOES NOT MATTER? Oh I'm sorry is "very minor" You heard it here first folks. Now I 'm questioning the voltage rating of a capacitor, does that matter or have any meaning? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
windashine Posted February 22, 2019 Share Posted February 22, 2019 … o O (the golf ball's did it for me lol) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schu Posted February 22, 2019 Share Posted February 22, 2019 9 minutes ago, windashine said: … o O (the golf ball's did it for me lol) Should have used Pinky's... everyone knows they are superior when it comes to vibration isolation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karlson3 Posted February 22, 2019 Share Posted February 22, 2019 a few questions which might (?) help Jeff's POV (and tax his typing) - How many amplifiers have you built over the years? In retrospect, which topology worked the best sonically for the least $ investment up to this point? - RC coupled? Transformer coupled? Loftin-White direct coupled? (with Jeff's extremely detailed advice via "snail mail" I built a 5842q parallel 2A3 SE amp about 26 years ago) (just yes or no) Is there a pecking order of topology for single ended vacuum tube amplifier audio path? How about the power supply ? When are push pull tube amps advantageous over their single ended relatives? Do you keep a "control" - reference amp to A-B as the development process moves onwards as to not be overly influenced by "expectation bias" ? fwiw with Jeff's experience, I would not discount some of his ideas as long as the speaker type is fixed. (I think he's cognizant of RC time constants - lol) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glens Posted February 22, 2019 Share Posted February 22, 2019 I concur that this is going nowhere, but I just wanted to both follow up on an idea expressed in an earlier post and to state for the record that I know what "Mil-Spec" means. Regarding the latter, the point I was getting at earlier was that although military specifications are usually quite good, the things they're specifying do not necessarily represent the cream of the crop, and I'd be surprised if NASA, for example, doesn't go beyond them with their own specifications in several areas (like wiring/terminations). Regarding the "follow-up," I whipped up a spreadsheet to determine the reactance of each individual capacitor in various combinations (1C; C/2 + C/2; and C/2 + C/3 + C/6) at half-octave steps throughout the audio band. I had the spreadsheet use the individual reactances mathematically combined into voltage-dividing networks and figure the voltage drop against an 8 ohm load at each of the frequencies. The result is that the three curves corresponded exactly, as opposed to my earlier thinking-out-loud that they may not. So it seems as though if one could obtain two capacitors of half-needed-value with the same (or lower!) ESR each than that of the appropriate single capacitor, advantage may well be gained by using the two paralleled instead of the single unit. (Any inductive part of the ESR would be improved upon for the same reason as the resistive part.) Or in combining several to arrive at a more correct value for the purpose at hand. (Heck, maybe even precisely combining value-wise different types for their perceived audio qualities.) That scenario may well be a more worthwhile rabbit to chase than precision lengths of exotic wire, as one example. I was a bit surprised by the results but admit I'd never given it any thought before this thread started to run its course, so at least no long-held beliefs have been undermined. Whew! On 2/19/2019 at 4:33 PM, Jeffrey D. Medwin said: I use multiple paralleled caps because NO one film cap can do the job, to my satisfaction, all by itself for the entire musical bandwidth.. I do not particularly CARE if the computed value is precisely met. About ten to twenty times more important, to me, is the quality and values of the caps, in a bundle, and what it sounds like to me. Different uF values of film caps each play a different part of the musical frequency spectrum. For the same exact uF value, different qualities are displayed by different cap manufacturers. I do this : I usually listen to music playback, and when I hear a range that has a suck-out, or a mild depression, I add the right uF value , to maximize that area which needs help. You have to know, gained from experience, what uF values of a bypass cap effects what musical range. If I think the transition of the mid bass to midrange is deficient, I know from prior experimenting, and I will use a 0.68 uF value. Typically, ONLY a DynamiCap E, is optimal in that range, ......actually its been UNbeatable in that range, music - performance wise. A 0.22 uF value will primarily effect the middle midrange, but there is probably only three Manufacturer's 0.22s I really like and will use. For a hole or depression in the lower treble, I know to try adding a 0.068. There are additional smaller values one may typically apply, going up the spectrum. Its all done by ear, and by prior experiences. Mr. Medwin, each time you simply add another capacitor to the bundle to address some perceived "hole or depression" somewhere in the audio band (which is indeed what you said there), all you're doing is lowering the crossover point in terms of what effect that "C" position is supposed to be doing. Since you're not doing anything with the associated inductor (I'm assuming by what I can see from your photos that it's a 2-pole crossover) to match the change in capacitance, I doubt the lowering of the crossover frequency is being effected as smoothly as it could. I may be mistaken about what you'd said. Perhaps you're taking some care to maintain the overall amount of capacitance. But the present quote sure doesn't sound like that's the case. In fact, let's look at your given examples. 0.68 uF has a reactance of 10k ohms at 22 Hz decreasing to 10 ohms at 23 kHz. 0.22 uF is 32k ohms and 31 ohms at those two frequencies. And for 0.068 uF the values range from 100k ohms at 22 Hz to 100 ohms at 23 kHz. I don't have an inkling which frequencies correspond to the three areas you mention so cannot even begin to offer what might be a ballpark reactance for any of those capacitor values there. Nonetheless, I don't see how it's possible you're getting improvements for "suckouts" or 'holes" anywhere by adding those caps to your crossover high-pass "C" bundle. All than can be happening is an overall lowering of capacitive reactance at that "C position." You remind me in some respects of one of my brothers. He's known for coming up with some real oddball ideas, like the time he considered putting up a wind-powered generator and gearing it up (overdriving it) to produce even more power from the same amount of wind (and selling the excess back to the power company). I tried to explain to him that it just doesn't work that way, but, oh well. He's my brother and I love him anyway. Thankfully he never followed up on the idea. Oh, you don't have to answer, but I wonder whether 57 1/8 includes or excludes the wiring from the output transformers and inside the speaker cabinets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panelhead Posted February 22, 2019 Share Posted February 22, 2019 15 hours ago, Jeffrey D. Medwin said: Hello Glen: (1) 57 1/8th inches comes from the Lab of Robert Fulton. Jeff I will check my existing cables to make see if they are at least 114.25”. And make sure the new ones are close. I was planning on 120” but that was not a hard number. Perefect length was enough to make the span from amplifier to speakers. Being a EE I would assume that length in a copper cable is some percentage of the wavelength of a particular frequency. Since the relative velocity of the EMF wave is an approximation in copper cables a transmission line the significance of 57.125 inches long is tough to pin down. The most common number I see for copper cable is 0.7. Propagation coefficient. I suspect that is precision to one decimal point. If larger cables improves the system and having the speaker cables a multiple of 57.125 inches long is audible who knows what’s next? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glens Posted February 22, 2019 Share Posted February 22, 2019 Yeah, 'cause what's good for 60 kHz has got to be ten times better for 6! FYI that's radio territory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WWVB Evidently the wavelength of 60 kHz is 196714.211 inches. That divided by 3443.5 nets 57.126, so there you go! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BEC Posted February 22, 2019 Share Posted February 22, 2019 This thread almost makes me want to go dig out those coat hangers again. Bob Crites 5 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted February 22, 2019 Share Posted February 22, 2019 I don’t think it counts unless you twist a few dozen together. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BEC Posted February 22, 2019 Share Posted February 22, 2019 I have had better luck with just single runs of coat hangers. Twist too many together and you get something similar to a toroidal flux inductor and those are dangerous. 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted February 22, 2019 Share Posted February 22, 2019 Lol. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panelhead Posted February 23, 2019 Share Posted February 23, 2019 23 hours ago, Jeffrey D. Medwin said: Deang, Goodness, you are over - reacting I have NO interest in building crossovers for Joe Public. As you have, or will will find out, the public mostly The GTO I use is now built by Kemet, $50 or so a cap, 50 part minimum order. WIMA GTO, none in stock, special order. Jeff I see a lot of talk on these ideas. But I am a man of action. These biwire Star Quad speaker cables are exactly 114.25” long. They do seem to sound better than two single runs of 16 ga. The initial transient on percussive attack is better defined. Whether half the resistance on the woofer cable, the Star Quad geometry, or being a multiple of 57.125” in length I cannot say. BTW, how is the speaker cabled measured? From tip to tip, binding post to binding post, or insulation to insulation? It is dark, sneaking over to Country Place Country Club to dive for golf balls in the water traps. Gators move slow when the water is this cold. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glens Posted February 23, 2019 Share Posted February 23, 2019 I would say "center of inner lug radius to center of inner lug radius". But that discounts internal wiring of both the amp and speaker... hahaha! If you're going that route, you've got to be sure the lengths are all within +/- .005 (inclusive) or you're wasting your time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.