If a small cap is necessary to pad up a base cap to precise value in crossover, consider that MR is newly in production in small values .1uf-.68uf. This would allow the "bypass" experiment to be made using like capacitors.
Dave
ClarityCap N. American Sales Agency |
Tom, there is no consensus of opinion among the several respected OEM designers that I have spoken with about this. One likes a single cap selected to a strict tolerance, another likes to parallel caps of roughly equal value but hand-selected to make tolerance, a third likes to pad up a base cap using .1-.33uf to make tolerance. I suppose that with this third approach it might be difficult to separate the effects of bypassing from the effects of making tolerance. Then of course there is Tony Gee, who likes small bypass caps and also combinations of different types in mixed ratios for flavoring. So far I have limited experience bypassing MR in crossover. I did try an MR base cap with a .01uf/200V Russian teflon. That combination was a bit edgy. I'd like to repeat that experiment with .01uf/350V Russian silver mica, which has a sweeter treble. |
I've been listening to Duelund 2.0 V2 wire for several days now in modified Merlin VSM-MX. 2.0 replaced stock Cardas copper bulk wire of perhaps 15awg. It's nowhere near broken in but initially promising. Similar to Volleyguy I'm principally hearing more LF and midrange development. There is very natural intonation of bass lines. Due to development across the lower spectrum the treble seems less prominant and airy. However this will probably change for the better with break-in.
There is background relaxation and quiet that actually led me to strobe test the TT to be sure that it was not running slow. I mean this in a good way. |
VG, as suggested by the other posters, it is fruitless to pursue a test methodology in which you listen to a stereo signal with different L/R components. I just went through this experiment in the course of upgrading from a well broken in ESS Sabre DAC chip in stereo mode to a dual mono configuration in which the broken-in stereo chip was restrapped to produce one channel in mono, and a fresh mono DAC chip was added to handle the opposite channel. I wired the two chips at random so I would not know which channel belonged to which chip. As I had earlier determined that a long break-in was necessary to bring out the best in the ESS chip, I fully expected to hear a significant difference from L to R.
In practice, the upgrade to dual mono produced an immediate improvement in perceived performance of both channels, but I could not hear any difference between L and R performance. As the new chip(in whichever unidentified channel) progressed through the break-in cycle, it became obvious that the entire stereo presentation was improving, but still impossible to associate this improvement with either channel. This proved to me that the mind hears an inextricable complicity between L and R that cannot be unraveled. It has nothing to do with plastic v. silk, phasing, or the like. |
Volleyguy, I won't debate break-in phenomena at length here, but IME some rather obvious changes sometimes occur through long break-in cycles-- particularly with digital circuits and caps and cables. After further break-in the HF of Duelund 2.0 V2 wire has opened and become airier. There is always the possibility of some sort of confirmation bias taking place over time, but personally I have more faith in my ears than that.
I'm not suggesting that you can't hear a difference from L to R when using different piece parts in your L and R speakers. However it's at best a confusing test methodology that will likely miss the finer points in operation as components reach a high level of performance. My little DAC mod experiment was the best example that I could give of how such improvements are perceived by two ears in stereo.
In another context, consider that some listeners with asymmetrical hearing loss claim to experience a balanced L/R stereo image. |
Volleyguy, in the key areas of performance the Duelund wire does much better than the old Cardas stranded copper, and maybe will continue to open up through extended break-in. It's interesting that in the course of PMing an audio friend who had also installed the Duelund wire in speakers, we both confessed to thinking of adding a super tweeter. Subliminally we were both looking for more on top. Are you? |
Volleyguy, be interesting to have your viewpoint on a stereo pair with the Duelund silver wire. After a few hundred hours I'm still undecided about this wire. The presentation has lots of satisfying weight and embodiment, but may be a tad over-damped and leaden. Does lots of things well, but maybe not everything. |
Further to the ClarityCap resonance study, I'll add that listening to a low-resonance capacitor-- or a low-resonance wire, assuming that this is the purpose of the oiled silk jackets on the Duelund wire-- can take some getting used to. Once the microphonic "excitement" is gone, one needs to evaluate whether musical information has gone missing as well. IMO excessive soft damping in some types of PIO caps can have both effects, in addition to causing shelving effects throughout FR.
Audio has alternatives to deal with mechanical resonance(e.g. soft vs. hard damping, coupling vs. isolation). Each approach may have its place. Moreover, damping properties of materials vary independent of dielectric properties. Teflon, for example, which has excellent dielectric properties, is relatively soft, which may be a good or bad thing with respect to resonance control? FWIW, I can report that at least several leading OEM designers don't like the "sound" of teflon as compared to polypropylene. But what properties of the construction are they really hearing? There are multiple variables in operation.
It's good that the inclusion of V-Cap in the discussion seems to have moved the thread beyond the paper vs. plastic discussion.
Dave
ClarityCap OEM Sales |
Volleyguy, I suppose that once the treble has been purged of artificial resonance excitements and is more clearly delineated, one is in a better position to experience the subtleties of what a good supertweeter can do on top. Moreover there are a few designers and reviewers who believe that a supertweeter projects overtones downward in FR. Thus there is the potential to unveil a more extensive improvement across FR, while also embellishing HF to redress the sensation of slight treble attenuation that one may perceive in a low-resonance crossover. As I have not yet tried this I am guessing, of course. |
Another way to embellish HF is to bypass the tweeter cap. I'd be interested to hear others' experiences on this point. |
This is an opportunity to substitute compact segmented thin-film metalized polyprop technology in place of electrolytics in PS. The SEG technology has less than 1/100th the ESR of any electrolytic, allowing substitution of a film capacitor at 1/10-1/2 the capacitance of the replaced electrolytic. Check out 700V Clarity TC. It may require an expansion chassis to make room, but well worth the effort. I've supplied several DIY and OEM projects of this kind.
ClarityCap NA OEM Sales Agency |
If trying to merge your audio and automotive interests, you might check out the Williams race team/Williams Advanced Engineering/Williams Hybrid Power. They use ICW/ClarityCaps in energy-recovery braking systems. |
Grannyring & Batalok,
There is a new ClarityCap TC/450V metalized polypropylene power cap that uses thinner film technology than the existing TC700V range. It offers good volumetric efficiency relative to the alternatives listed above. It has a low-resonance acrylic tube like MR, and radial four-pole Kelvin terminations to improve high frequency filtering. Dims for 100uf are 50x65mm.
ClarityCap OEM Sales |
Hi-Fi Collective is just now receiving inventory and Parts ConneXion should have inventory in 5-6 weeks. |
Erik, The new ClarityCap CMR CopperConnect range will benefit even less from bypassing than MR. CMR has the MR series-wound construction and resonance treatments, with the addition of a copper litz lattice embedded in the end cap. This reduces impedance and phase anomalies across the conductive ends that (in traditional metalized film caps) result from oxidized grain boundaries in the tin-zinc end spray. This is a significant improvement. Regards, Dave
ClarityCap OEM Sales |
Hi Volleyguy1, Yes, I think some of what you think of as the "poly sound" is happening in the tin-zinc end spray. Our OEM evaluators of the preproduction versions consistently felt that the copper ends reduce treble glare and smearing, producing a more natural timbre. |
Hi Erik, Madisound and Parts Connexion will have CMR & CSA in stock soon. I can provide free samples to substantiated manufacturers. I run an occasional group buy for hobbyists and smaller OEMs who need custom values or can’t justify factory MOQs. Since the surface area of the end spray increases with diameter, the benefit of coppering the ends is greatest with the higher value caps. This led us to shift catalogued aspect ratios toward larger diameters and shorter lengths. In turn the narrower metalized film stock employed further reduces ESR. The downside is that fatter caps may not fit in some applications. ClarityCap OEM Sales |
MR4.7uf/630V 50x50mm vs. CMR 40Lx60D MR4.7uf/400V 50x38D vs. CMR 50x38D MR10uf/630V 65x60D vs. CMR 65x60D MR10uf/400V 65x51D vs. CMR 40x60D |
Parts Connexion should have them in early September. BTW yesterday I began testing CMR samples in my system, starting with CMR/400V in place of MR in two coupling applications in a Pass XP-25 phono stage. CMR is a big step up, even cold out of the box. ClarityCap OEM Sales |
"Copper Minimal Resonance" |
