Looks great. Now you can pick up the new OmniMic 40K and compare your single channel model to a new and improved loopback model! Tell your wife that you need to do the full spinorama; I'm sure that she will understand!
I used four 55uF PP caps instead of electrolytics on my Micro Grands mids. But I got them cheap. They were on sale for $2.48 each at Newark a few years ago. I paralleled them for 220uF, so only a total of $9.92 per side. If I did not have these cheap caps, I probably would have used electrolytics.
@Eggguy said:
... How many of you out there in speakerland would use electrolytics anywhere on the woofer? Remember this is not a budget build.
@4thtry said:
I used four 55uF PP caps instead of electrolytics on my Micro Grands mids. But I got them cheap. They were on sale for $2.48 each at Newark a few years ago. I paralleled them for 220uF, so only a total of $9.92 per side. If I did not have these cheap caps, I probably would have used electrolytics.
Some 100uF caps at PE -- NPE $2; Dayton DMPC $30; Audyn Q4 $40; Jantzen Standard-Z $82.
At JF Components 2 x 47uF ($6.19 each) = $12.20
I'd go with JuleFidelity in parallel if it were me.
I will use electrolytic caps on woofers below 500 Hz. I've been known to use electrolytic caps with a bypass cap above that. I use larger inductors to avoid bigger caps on woofers.
I have all the parts, I am just concerned they might not fit. C10 has a great effect. C16 seems to have the least effect as far as tolerance goes it can vary quite a bit. and C14 can also vary quite a bit without significant effect.
I normally don't lose too much sleep about using an electrolyric cap in the shunt section of a woofer LP filter, especially when there is also some added series resistance with it (typical). You can model it in most sim programs by adding a series 0.5 to 1.5 ohms. It usuallly doesn't change the transfer function, FR, or phase very much. That said sometimes it does. Example, I used an Audyn Q4 68 uF cap in my Keramiska project because it did negatively affect the sound. That added almost $50 to the project but in that case it was totally worth it.
@Eggguy said:
New crossover. I keep going steeper slopes. This one is LR4 at 1480Hz and I can no longer hear woofer ringing. How many of you out there in speakerland would use electrolytics anywhere on the woofer? Remember this is not a budget build.
I would an electrolytic for the 470uf and poly on the rest, mostly because of space requirements, but that's just me.
@4thtry said:
Looks great. Now you can pick up the new OmniMic 40K and compare your single channel model to a new and improved loopback model! Tell your wife that you need to do the full spinorama; I'm sure that she will understand!
I used four 55uF PP caps instead of electrolytics on my Micro Grands mids. But I got them cheap. They were on sale for $2.48 each at Newark a few years ago. I paralleled them for 220uF, so only a total of $9.92 per side. If I did not have these cheap caps, I probably would have used electrolytics.
She would be fine with me spending $9.92 times 2, but 500 bucks is difficult for a guy to justify, especially when he is still struggling with the technology that he has.
I still do not know how to voice a speaker. I trust my omnimic to a certain extent. I am thankful to have a good room despite it being narrow. I am also surprised that I can detect things that irritate my ears and can address them. I guess that is just my fault finding nature. It can be useful on rare occasions. Very rare.
@Eggguy said:
New crossover. I keep going steeper slopes. This one is LR4 at 1480Hz and I can no longer hear woofer ringing. How many of you out there in speakerland would use electrolytics anywhere on the woofer? Remember this is not a budget build.
I would an electrolytic for the 470uf and poly on the rest, mostly because of space requirements, but that's just me.
I got one buttoned up, I put a 100 uF electrolytic in the parallel trap, or whatever its called. There is no 470. Its a .47
The only issue I worry about with an electrolytic in the LP as a shunt is the possible change in value over the years. But if you're still alive, you can always recap the speaker after a decade or two.
@Eggguy said:
I still do not know how to voice a speaker. I trust my omnimic to a certain extent. I am thankful to have a good room despite it being narrow. I am also surprised that I can detect things that irritate my ears and can address them. I guess that is just my fault finding nature. It can be useful on rare occasions. Very rare.
You are "voicing" your speakers. By stating "I am also surprised that I can detect things that irritate my ears and can address them"
@Eggguy said:
I still do not know how to voice a speaker. I trust my omnimic to a certain extent. I am thankful to have a good room despite it being narrow. I am also surprised that I can detect things that irritate my ears and can address them. I guess that is just my fault finding nature. It can be useful on rare occasions. Very rare.
You are "voicing" your speakers. By stating "I am also surprised that I can detect things that irritate my ears and can address them"
So I guess in order to get some feedback I need to be more provocative. I think that the depth of a reverse null is not important. I think it only shows what is going on at one position at one frequency. Like judging a pig by a thin slice of ham. That's my analogy.
@Eggguy said:
...I think that the depth of a reverse null is not important...
I'd only change this to "not that important". If I could have a deeper reverse null with no other difference, I would prefer it because it suggest the phase alignment is better. If I could have a deeper reverse null but I have to sacrifice on-axis response, or off-axis, or power, I'd have to weigh the tradeoffs and I don't think the reverse null would get that much weight.
@Eggguy said:
...I think it only shows what is going on at one position at one frequency...
True, but it is not one RANDOM frequency. It is at a specific position, the crossover point, where we would like to have as-good-as-possible phase alignment (subject to tradeoffs).
I think overlapping or parallel phase tracking above and below Fc is more important than the shape or existence of a reverse null. Odd order filters will have parallel phase tracking (90 degrees out) without a null. Even order filters will have overlapping phase tracking and a sharp reverse null. Like ghostbusters, don't cross the streams.
Every time I attempt to simplify my crossover without degrading phase tracking or power response, my XO point gets lower. My next attempt is around 1250. I will build it and do A B comparison to my buttoned up egg. I hope I don't burn up my tweets with no ferrofluid.
Comments
Looks great. Now you can pick up the new OmniMic 40K and compare your single channel model to a new and improved loopback model! Tell your wife that you need to do the full spinorama; I'm sure that she will understand!
I used four 55uF PP caps instead of electrolytics on my Micro Grands mids. But I got them cheap. They were on sale for $2.48 each at Newark a few years ago. I paralleled them for 220uF, so only a total of $9.92 per side. If I did not have these cheap caps, I probably would have used electrolytics.
Some 100uF caps at PE -- NPE $2; Dayton DMPC $30; Audyn Q4 $40; Jantzen Standard-Z $82.
At JF Components 2 x 47uF ($6.19 each) = $12.20
I'd go with JuleFidelity in parallel if it were me.
I will use electrolytic caps on woofers below 500 Hz. I've been known to use electrolytic caps with a bypass cap above that. I use larger inductors to avoid bigger caps on woofers.
Z min is 3.28 at 500 Hz
I have all the parts, I am just concerned they might not fit. C10 has a great effect. C16 seems to have the least effect as far as tolerance goes it can vary quite a bit. and C14 can also vary quite a bit without significant effect.
I normally don't lose too much sleep about using an electrolyric cap in the shunt section of a woofer LP filter, especially when there is also some added series resistance with it (typical). You can model it in most sim programs by adding a series 0.5 to 1.5 ohms. It usuallly doesn't change the transfer function, FR, or phase very much. That said sometimes it does. Example, I used an Audyn Q4 68 uF cap in my Keramiska project because it did negatively affect the sound. That added almost $50 to the project but in that case it was totally worth it.
I would an electrolytic for the 470uf and poly on the rest, mostly because of space requirements, but that's just me.
She would be fine with me spending $9.92 times 2, but 500 bucks is difficult for a guy to justify, especially when he is still struggling with the technology that he has.
ApexJr has 100uF caps for cheap if that helps.
I'm with Nick on this one. Poly except for the 470uF. The Jule or Q4 should be fine otherwise.
InDIYana Event Website
I still do not know how to voice a speaker. I trust my omnimic to a certain extent. I am thankful to have a good room despite it being narrow. I am also surprised that I can detect things that irritate my ears and can address them. I guess that is just my fault finding nature. It can be useful on rare occasions. Very rare.
I got one buttoned up, I put a 100 uF electrolytic in the parallel trap, or whatever its called. There is no 470. Its a .47
The only issue I worry about with an electrolytic in the LP as a shunt is the possible change in value over the years. But if you're still alive, you can always recap the speaker after a decade or two.
I think Tom just called you old.
I suppose I had that one coming
I appreciate it, but I need no additional reminders.
If they are only calling you old they must like you, you should hear what they call me
I'm in no position to call anybody else old! I'm thinking more of me and my present age - which often surprises even ME.
FWIW, this week's video from Kevin at Skylabs Audio (who is 11 years younger than me) was titled, "When I Die, What Happens to My Massive Collection?"
You are "voicing" your speakers. By stating "I am also surprised that I can detect things that irritate my ears and can address them"
How about that.
+1
New crossover, haven't tried it yet but it is simpler. Got rid of that parallel tank. XO is now 1280 ish
Six pack, help yourself
I am giving a bit of priority to power response. Also I am giving priority to above tweeter axis.
So I guess in order to get some feedback I need to be more provocative. I think that the depth of a reverse null is not important. I think it only shows what is going on at one position at one frequency. Like judging a pig by a thin slice of ham. That's my analogy.
The Pig might have something to say about that ^.
Keep going, man . . .
Total radiated power. Thats the stuff we hear in the back row. Oink
I'd only change this to "not that important". If I could have a deeper reverse null with no other difference, I would prefer it because it suggest the phase alignment is better. If I could have a deeper reverse null but I have to sacrifice on-axis response, or off-axis, or power, I'd have to weigh the tradeoffs and I don't think the reverse null would get that much weight.
True, but it is not one RANDOM frequency. It is at a specific position, the crossover point, where we would like to have as-good-as-possible phase alignment (subject to tradeoffs).
I agree, It is not random, however it is something that I must confess is easy for me to fixate over.
I think overlapping or parallel phase tracking above and below Fc is more important than the shape or existence of a reverse null. Odd order filters will have parallel phase tracking (90 degrees out) without a null. Even order filters will have overlapping phase tracking and a sharp reverse null. Like ghostbusters, don't cross the streams.
Every time I attempt to simplify my crossover without degrading phase tracking or power response, my XO point gets lower. My next attempt is around 1250. I will build it and do A B comparison to my buttoned up egg. I hope I don't burn up my tweets with no ferrofluid.