Duelund
Yes I might be crazy. Like I have mentioned before how did some old tube amp pulverize my new SS amp at the start of this thread started my brain thinking and testing wanting to know why?????
One of the things that shocked me the most was the old amp was "dead" quiet. I have 104db efficient speakers and the noise reduction was just astonishing compared to the new SS amp.
I am starting to wonder now about new electrolytics. My formerly "dead" quiet amp EL84 has no idle hum (and did not before) at all with the Jensen electrolytic but a white noise at a level vastly higher than the vintage electrolytic cap. I can hardly keep myself from yanking it out!
Are the new electrolytics packed tighter to make them so much smaller? The old one I took apart a lot of goo (electrolytic) with the paper kind of a gooey dead mass. Are the new electrolytics too focused on size??? (being small) Is the reason the ASC caps are thought so good (power supply) they have liquid around the cap. Is this causing a dampening? I expect so.
On the coupling caps the vintage Vishay's are all dipped in some resin. The Ampohms are not. Is that why the Ampohms are noiser? Is this dampening the resonance? |
Ait
I would not have a clue how to do that! Now when you say eliminate PS caps from the signal path completely? So no PS caps? Are regualar PS caps considered in the signal path? Anywhere to read up on this? |
Yes, in most designs the last PS cap is in the signal path, because the signal path is not isolated from the PS current path. The PS caps are still there in a parafeed type design, but they are isolated from the signal path by the circuit design. For example, a constant current source (CCS) supplying the plate voltage will have an almost infinite AC impedance, meaning that the signal can't get through it (high power supply isolation in other words) - a resistor does not even come close to that, and so a good portion of the signal will pass back through it. What you end up with in the parafeed design is two current loops, one for the signal and another for the power supply, instead of having them commingled.
This is a bit of a complex subject, and in order to understand it you will need to read up on CCS theory, plate chokes, parafeed topology, and general amplifier circuit design (as I did). The DIYAudio tube forum is a good place to start. |
Hours on Jensen Electrolytic I would guess 25-30++.
When doing the midrange speaker comparison cap test I found the vintage foil in oil to be the second best to Duelund and the difference not huge. (this confused and shocked me)
I once said after putting the Duelund tweeter caps in the speaker I could not believe I was listening to digital.
When the Jensen is in the amp power supply the sound is digital! The noise level is for sure up. Sound tense and dry.
I am of the belief it is the liquid. The vintage electrolytic cap is bigger for the same volume. More liquid? In making caps smaller tighter and no doubt drier is there not a price to pay? If Duelund adds more oil on there wire and claim improvement would not having less electrolytic (goo) make sound drier?
At this point this is one of the biggest differences in caps I have heard. (not in the new caps favour either) Yes more bass but much more noise.
At the begining of the thread I put in Sonicaps in one speaker and left the other vintage foil and oil. My wife came to listen with absolute no knowledge of which was which and was floored how much better the one was. She said that is amazing! You should be thrilled, problem was she was pointing to the vintage foil in oil not the new caps. (with the hours on them)
I think that is why some guy pays $15k for some old amp that may go up in smoke any time. Is it the old electrolytics?
http://www.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?ampstube&1291419107&/Marantz-Model--9-(Original)-tu
Tempo claims that ASC caps beats all electrolyics PERIOD. I can imagine this.
Now what about foil in oil in the power supply? I have already looked at Duelund but too pricey an experiment for me.
As it stands now the vintage goooey sounding electrolytic is going back in and Duelund caps and oily wire everywhere.
I will put at least 100+ hours on the power supply cap to be sure. |
Ait
I am going to have to do some more reading about this for sure as I am just floored by what the first cap does after the rectifier tube! Just unbelievable!
In my opinion this may "the" most important part of the amp?
It actually scares me! No one would know I had several $k in coupling caps and wires. I want to end this experiment early.
This may be why I thought the vintage ASC amp (had a poly plastic tone to it) was the only bad sounding vintage amp I had with a dead feel to it that is until now. |
Just putting on the hours. I can not wait to yank this part out.
Fast, stiff, tense, dry, shrill and noisy. Voices have non human sound frail sound.
Vintage cap slower, lush, liquid and musical.
Coming out early next week unless a huge change. |
Info too come soon on power supply caps.
Searching the net for another test.
Duelund have you ever tried any of your caps in the power supply? |
Back testing Jensen vs. Duelund as coupling caps.
Looking at just getting complete Duelund in the signal path.
I had taken out the amp with the Jensen electrolytic. Not knocking Jensen as the coupling caps are pretty good, but I do not care for the electrolyic cap. No Black Gate WKZ to compare too.
Part of me would really like to try a paper in oil for the first cap in the power supply. Just do not want to spend a bucket load of money on a Duelund just to hear a theory.
Might just finish off full Duelund signal path and call it a day. (except first cap in power supply) |
So I might be wasting my time here, I will try to collapse my own experimenting over the last year
However, due to the length of this thread I will get to the point for anybody trying to decipher what works best from the beginning in my opinion now.
-Duelund, excellent in Speakers and Electronics
I actually find at their cost that the better application is in full range electronic positions as I am currently using.
-Mundorfs, hit or miss honestly. Certain applications excel using these some not.
-Clarity MR, best all around performer for the money, speakers or electronics.
-Jupiter HT new caps
KILLER in electronics, so close to the Duelunds in tone and natural sound its silly and they are very reasonably priced. I have not heard these in speakers. I would choose these over Mundorfs almost always in a full range application especially due to cost.
-Finally the best overall cost effective way to handle your Highs, and Mids in a Speaker crossover. Sure if you can go 100% Duelund and the cost is not going to make the project just unreachable go for it.
However, bar none so far out of all the Jantzen, Duelund, Clarity cap, Jensen oils, Mundorf oils, and Audiocap Theta's I have heard go with a Base value cap you need from Clarity MR, for example if you need a 1.0 uF go with a Clarity MR, and then BYPASS it with a small Mundorf Silver/OIL no gold needed!
The Clarity MR really is right between the Mundorf Silver/oil and Silver-Gold / Oil Fame in my opinion. And this combo really is the best I have heard using a MR with a Mundorf Silver / oil bypass on it.
I was shocked when I accidentally did this combo, It actually bettered a Duelund VSF in my application and luckily the Duelund was a perfect value to use in my Phono tube amp and was then transferred to that output cap position saving me a TON of money on the speakers now using the MR / Mundorf silver/oil combo.
This cost me something like 20 bucks for the small Mundorf Oils, and around 40 to 80 for the larger Clarity MR's so for under 100 bucks a cap position compared to 200 and 300 for the Duelunds which were not as impressive for the money vs. this combo anyway in my application is the way to go for most.
By the way I have used the Vishay bypass caps as well in this application as mentioned on the Humble capacitor shootouts, they do work well, but for sure add a more "Plastic" sound where the Mundorf Oils really disappear and make everything wider, deeper, and warmer when combined with the MR's.
I cannot explain it, but it is smooth / magic and musical for the cost projects out there, again easily beats all other combos mentioned above, I would stick to Clarity MR, Duelunds, or Jupiters for electronics however depending on the cost and size restraints. |
Undertow.
And what about the reproduction of low frequencies in capacitors ClarityCap MR, when compared with Duelund? |
Honestly very close.
The Duelunds have a very organic bottom end in full range production, the MR is very tight and powerful. It will come down to system synergy. No doubt if your more into tube sounding bass that the duelund will be more like that, the MR is a little more highlighted.
Tuff call, however I do ultimately in a speaker application use a MR but then again in a woofer its a parallel cap, and for output caps I do prefer the Duelunds vs. the MR in some ways. So it will be very difficult to say which is totally better for all applications, however for straight out cost effective I can tell you the MR is right there overall. You have to spend A LOT more to do the duelunds. |
Undertow,
Thanks for the clarification. I'm just interested in capacitors for use in loudspeakers.
Another question, what capacitance Mundorf Silver Oil used as a bypass for Clarity MR? |
Undertow,
Certainly appreciate your thoughtful input on these very difficult and time consuming evaluations. In my own experience I have found that the addition of bypass caps in speakers results in a loss of precise focus and change in the harmonic structure. Its as if I am hearing two slightly different crossover points and the alignment is off. I also know from my own experience that patience is a virtue when it comes to breakin time. That there is going to be a long melding process in the combination of two different devices mechanically and chemically. How long did you allow for breakin of each cap and how long for the siamese pair? What was your motivation to add the Mundorf to the original installation of the Clarity MR?
Tom |
Tom, I have the same experience when bypassing in speaker crossovers. And after experiencing MR and CAST caps, I find the S/O to be one of most over rated caps for speaker crossovers. Otherwise, my experiences mirror Undertow's. |
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 |
Dave
Are you saying to measure the value of the main cap. A cap that is is supposed to be 10uf and measures 9.5uf then you would add the same brand and type of cap in this case .5uf. This is exactly what I did some years ago with a set of Dunlavy's and was disappointed with the overall outcome. I did not mix brands or types in the bypass section. I did change much of everything including the resistors[greatest improvement] and inductors[some] caps[kinda of a letdown] The low pass section required a 120uf cap which I built up from about 30 3.2uf Hitachi film caps that I felt were used sucessfully in other projects. These caps were a different brand than all the rest but were never used together to create another value. I will pickup some MR's now that they are available in smaller values to compare in the tweeter section now used. Tom |
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. |
To clarify, I hate bypassing anything as stated above as well, but the MR - Silver OIL combo works very well, it gels nicely, no dual cap separated sound. And again this was simply pointed out in this "Specific case" for a cost effective way to hit the mid's and highs with a little refinement. |
Undertow
Thank you for your efforts of observation and Clarity..pun intended. What ratio works for you with the combo of MR's and S/O's. Example please.
Thanks Tom |
Theaudiotweak,
Honestly I don't know if there is a specific "Golden Ratio" so to speak.
However, I ended up with a 1 uF Clarity MR bypassed by a .1 uF Silver oil... So I guess a 90% to 10% worked well here, but keep in mind I also was low on my value for the crossover point and needed an additional .1 uF anyway, so if your looking to maybe keep a base cap value that you are already using for example you need a 2.2 uF and it should stay there because you do not want to shift your frequency point to much then you can go with a .01 uF to get the flavor mix.
I don't know, the smaller the better is possibly the key for a bypass as some believe, but in some cases a larger bypass depending on the application could be the way to go.
I have also used a "Battery" config in a friends speaker, which is literally one cap that is 2.2 uF then paralleled with another 2.2 uF for a total of 4.4 uF and ended up with excellent results as well...
For electronics I never liked the bypass cap results, speakers it works well if the right mix and application call for it. |
Thanks Undertow for your response. You, like me seem to make all the values plus or minus 1%. Do you believe that manufacturers go to the exacting component value matching that most contributors to this thread subject their own components to? I bet that manufacturers voice their product with a certain component installed without checking beyond the imprinted plus or minus 5% value. Maybe when we add our 5 cents to the value we are skewing the response from what the "Guru" said was the proper way. We trust our ears.
One thing that may not have been addressed here was the DCR values of upgraded inductors versus the original equipment.
Looking back in retrospect the dcr within a crossover especially one that is phase correct and time coherent the dcr value of an inductor must have been a part of the original equation. If you look at the swap out of a 14 gauge to an 8 guage inductor you will have a reduction in dcr of 55% or more. If you have several replacement inductors in a circuit and replace all with the same greater gauge can you maintain the original alignment and phase plot? Would you not change the overall critical damping of the speaker? The replacement dcr values would not be linear in there influence on many measurement aspects. I am not an engineer but I am a experienced and capable listener. I think I jacked some really nice speakers by swaping the original inductors for ones with much lower DCR. Inductor DCR variations within a speaker that is not phase and time aligned may not be as critical or as easily noticed or heard. You may have to adjust for Q and overall bass damping adjustments to get the bass corrected to your taste. My current speaker has a series crossover and has supplemental damping adjustments made by a tie rod screwed into the back of the bass driver and terminated and adjustable on the back panel of the speaker. This adjustment will compensate for all maner of things from wires to amps to furniture and acoustical rearangement as well as listeners musical tastes ...also variations of inductors and DCR. Tom |
Theaudiotweak,
Honestly, I don't think every speaker has the exact best value for their speaker... Many times I am sure they take the closest thing, and or plus minus up to 10%... And unless its a REALLY pricey speaker probably even in the 10,000 and up range I doubt they are hitting it dead on the head and tuning it with custom values if necessary to really tighten it up.
And for the most part for this thread I doubt most people are looking to crack open their 20 k pair of Ushers, or 30 wilsons etc... and replacing the crossovers...which these guys should have mirrored crossovers very accurate to each other with caps that lay in the upper range of cost anyway, not just caps of the shelf with the values printed, but actually measured by hand again and matched to the pair.
I guarantee with the way this thread started talking about Klipsch 5 k speakers etc... Yes you can do much better than whats in there including the actual values and quality changes. This is I am sure a cost more than just the fact they will not sit and tune it by ear for what sounds best. if it was a 20,000 dollar Usher speaker or something than not so sure, I do believe they go a bit further matching and using higher quality components.
Then again Klipsch sells the 20 k speaker now too, I have seen the crossovers which contain the Benic higher end caps, not too expensive so in a 20 k speaker it could be argued they are out of their league when you go into the nose bleed prices like that and expect at least something like a mid priced Clarity cap or mundorf in there, maybe the benic computer / audio grade caps sounded better in that speaker and the tried Duelunds and Mundorfs, but I doubt it :-) |
Undertow
I would really like to know what is in $20k and $30k speakers for crossover parts. My 5k newer speakers had just garbage and the older $5k Klipsch much better. The new speakers had el cheapo electrolytic caps in the crossover. (less than $50 in parts each for $5k speakers)
I am under the understanding that Klipsch new $20k speakers use just dirt cheap parts?
After all the tests I have done I would not buy a set of speakers without seeing the crossover. (at least not anymore) I can not even comprehend it anymore.
It would be really nice to hear what some guys with stock caps in pricey speaker have. I am quite curious.
Is there a correlation of what you pay for speakers and get for parts? I am of the Steen mindset it is mostly (for most companies) a looks or marketing thing. |
Wilson site pics.
A blurred pic showing what looks like poly caps and cheap wire wound inductors with plastic ties to me? Is the pic blurred on purpose?
http://wilsonaudio.com/product_html/maxx_xover.html
Even in a set of $30k speakers what can a manufacturer spend on parts? I often hear 1/6th of retail price???
So wire, drivers, cabinets and all crossover parts for $5k and of course building and any R&D.
Is there really economy of scale in making new speakers? Can the big companies get there parts for a fraction of what we pay? |
Out of sight out of mind. Value is in measurements. A sand cast resistor measures the same as a Vishay foil or a Duelund. The sonic difference will make you jump out of your chair. If they can't measure the the benefit of brass fasteners over steel they sure as hell are not going to take the time to listen to the difference which is obvious. Tom |
Volleyguy
Well I have seen many which use Rel, Solen etc... Those white body caps in Wilson are likely Rel, probably 5 bucks a cap on some of them, Rel cap last I know was based in California, make several OEM caps under several names, like the Audiocap Thetas, Multicap etc...
All from the same company. Maybe they are soniccaps which are also most likely made by Rel/Multicap as well. Audio research uses them too in electronics. However, that being said does not matter, the point is of course those parts are nowhere in range of what that speaker ultimately costs and most people would not know the difference.
If I personally was crazy enough to spend 50 k on a pair of speakers, then of course knowing what I do I would demand some higher cost parts which will never happen so I just don't buy them!
And I doubt wilsons 100 k per pair speaker uses Duelunds or anything near the cost of them either. These companies charge for their products based on advertising and engineering costs, not so much final material costs which can be high but not as much as you might think, labor etc... And energy used to produce the pair are the biggest costs, not material.
Much smaller and less known name companies charge based on if they use a Mundorf or whatever in the speaker. I know of some, they are good, but still not super cheap.
I can't think of the name of the company that uses Duelunds right now, I think Gryphon is one of them, but anyway the speakers of 80,000 plus a pair is about the lowest I have seen using obscene cost caps.
Regardless open a super high end speaker and some could be shocked that the crossover is worth 100 bucks that crossover is not even within range of the cost of the finished product. But Klipsch your lucky if you have 2 dollars invested in the pair of crossovers! |
I agree with all that you have said Undertow except in the older Klipsch with the foil caps autoformer.
The Klipsch foil in oil were the second best next to the Duelund VSF in the midrange.
The vintage Klipsch even had a iron core wax paper inductor. (wax paper being the key to reduce resonance)
Bob Crites uses just Sonicaps (which are very different from original) and an autoformer and inductor supposed to be exactly the same and charges $285 for AA's. My guess is it would cost around $500+ to even match original with foil caps of equal sound.
I do agree with you though in the sense my Linn speakers used dirt cheap parts around $50 for everything.
I bet if one looks the trend is to cheaper parts in the cabinet all of the time.
My crossover costs (not including parts not kept)
2 Duelund 2uf VSF $167.17
2 Duelund 2uf CAST $334.34
2 Duelund VSF 13uf $535
2 2.5mh Duelund WPIO inductors $437.61
Total x2
$2948.24 Plus 20 feet of Duelund Silver wire .5 $250
10 feet of Duelund copper wire $45
Total $3243.24
I can see why companies are looking cheaper! I love the sound of them but do understand why speakers are not made with expensive parts. Use Linn level parts and save $3200 each pair of speakers. Very inticing when the speakers "look" the same. |
Here you go... This is the company I could not think of, Duelund and Mundorf mixed on this one, for a cool 155,000!At least at this price you no matter what get something beyond auricaps or solens!
http://www.tidal-audio.de/english/startenglishprodukte.htm |
Peak Consult also uses Duelund crossover parts.
FYI, my girlfriend's $200 Cambridge Audio bookshelf speakers even use Bennic film caps. Something is wrong if speakers costing 100 times as much are using parts of the same quality. |
I owned a pair of Spendor 9/1 speakers which cost around 6 grand in the early 90's. When I decided to upgrade the crossovers myself, I found that they were full of cheap Bennics also. I put in a bunch of Mundorf and Sonicaps and new wiring and the difference was very noticeable. |
We see a clear tendency among our business clients, that they are typically founded and run by an enthusiast, who also handles the design of the components and perhaps even the purchasing of items for production. These are the types of companies that make out the vast majority of our business sales. Larger corporations where parts are bought by the thousands, typically do no approach subvendors such as ourselves.
I don't mean to say, that larger corporations do not make good products, just to say that a lot of the smaller firms out there see development very much like a hobby, and would like to know if cap rolling, changing inductors etc. etc. make a qualitative difference. |
Duelund
Steen had mentioned when he designed those caps with no concern from a board about costs what his focus was. (best possible sound)
I believe we really have two markets. One of speakers built by larger companies with a focus on the bottom line (and not saying that is bad) and what drives it such as fancy cabinets (mentioned by Steen) fancy ads and attractive cabinets of which mine speakers are for sure not and those (likely small numbers) who mostly care about how they sound.
How many times on this thread have we even heard people mention how pretty there cabinets are? It is clear what group is here.
I have said before I feel after hearing these parts that store bought speakers (with mostly cheap parts) are only a starting point not an end point.
I can not even imagine a large company who has paid a $1 or $2 for a cap even looking at caps in the hundreds of $$$ if they are looking at their bottom line?
I am just glad you make them and I can say I have no buyers remorse. (except sometimes think I should have got more CAST, maybe but not less of a crossover) |
|
Duelund enters high voltage entry level cap.
Is this in response to what has been talked about here? That meaning that the power supply is very important more than previously thought? (at least by me)
Is this new cap for the power supply? |
Interesting article on Duelund wire.
I would have thought the 2.0 would be much better??? It seems not so clear at least in this guys mind and at 3x the price.
http://www.hificollective.co.uk/kits/pdf/duelund_wbt_interconnect_review.pdf
The reviewer mentions the highlighting that I also feel is done by stranded favouring certain freq. for some reason? I agree your brain trys to connect the dots.
He also mentions that the bass is maybe a little shy, exactly what I though as well in the .5. (but still very smooth and natural)
Oddly enough I keep doing the same thing with the Jensen vs. Duelund VSF in the amp. I keep coming back to Duelund but the Jensen (Copper paper tube) is sharper?
Could be some Christmas gifts coming. VSF Black? Silver wire? Power supply? Hmmmmm. |
Volleyguy,
It's a new entry level copper coupling cap. |
Volleyguy,
It's been a while since I last posted on your thread and I have some updates to give, and a lot more questions to ask regarding a new crossover project.
When I last posted here I was had two things going: (1) I had ordered the Duelund VSF Copper caps for my Silverline SR17.5 speakers, and (2) I was helping one friend with the prospect of modifying the crossover in his Silverline Bolero speakers. Since my last post I installed the VSFs in the 17.5s, ended up selling them to a friend, and bought the Boleros from my other friend. The Bolero crossover project was never undertaken, but that is the project I'm considering.
I. The Silverline SR17.5 upgrade: Duelund 3.3micF VSF copper capacitors and cast resistors: The cast resistors are normally 5" long but that would have been a tight fit in the 17.5s. I exchanged a few emails with Frederik and he said they could make them any length I wanted. We agreed on 4" and he said to have the folks at PartsConnexion put that specification on the order form. However, the resistors I received were 5" long. I don't know if the person at PartsConnexion ignored my specific request to make it clear on the order form that I wanted a 4" resistor, or if Duelund made the mistake. I decided to try to make the longer resistor work - as I said, 5" would be a tight fit, but not impossible.
On the first speaker I got the VSF capacitor and resistor installed and the mounting board put back into the speaker cabinet. I was anxious to hear the VSF so I immediately went upstairs from the basement, connected it to one of my monoblocks and gave it a listen. The sound was clear, but a little bright and thin. A few moments later, literally as I was walking across the room, the volume coming out of the speaker suddenly dropped - the sound was then richer and more harmonically balanced - I instantly knew what Tony Gee was talking about. I guess the cap got its first good charging. At first I thought I wasn't hearing as much information through the VSF as the Mundorf S/G/O, but after listening for a little while longer I realized that everthing was there, it was clear as a bell, but it was more harmonically balanced and structured than the S/G/O, and this was after about 20-minutes listening, not the 200-hours break-in on which I was still planning before forming a definite opinion.
I went back down to the basement and installed the Duelund components for the second speaker. However, when I was putting the panel back in the speaker one of the leads from the CAST resistor got stressed and snapped where it enters the resistor. Like I said, 5" was a tight fit. I was a little annoyed and didn't feel like fooling with getting another one so I put my Mundorf resistors in the circuit. I took the speaker upstairs and listened to them both in the system, one with the Mundorf resistors and the other with the Duelund. I listened for only a few minutes but didn't hear a glaring difference so I took the CAST resistor out of the first speaker, replacing it with the Mundorfs so that the crossover components would be consistent between the speakers.
A few days later the guys that own the local stereo shop here came by for a listen. They'd heard the 17.5s with the stock and the S/G/O capacitors. Upon hearing the VSFs one of them quickly remarked that they were faster than the S/G/O caps. I hadn't thought of that, but I think he was right. Compared to the S/G/O, in summary, I found the VSF's sound to be more harmonically structured and balanced; richer; denser; faster. It had all of the detail of the S/G/O, maybe more, but it was all in balance. It certainly did not have the "slight emphasis" in the treble of the S/G/O.
My friend with the Silverline Boleros had to put his crossover project on hold for a while and in the meantime acquired a pair of Sound Lab electrostatic speakers and made me an offer on the Boleros that I couldn't refuse. So, to help fund that purchase, I sold the 17.5 speakers to my best friend back home for his home office. I had helped him put together his system, which was intended originally for a room larger than his home office. He had a Denon PMA 2000 Mark-IV integrated amp, Rega Saturn CD player, Canton Chronos floorstanding speakers, and some vintage Audio Magic Sorcerer silver speaker cables and interconnects. We swapped out the Chronos speakers for the 17.5s, the Chronos will end up in another system at some point.
Over the next several months I kept telling him that he didn't need the power of the PMA and that he would likely enjoy having a small tube amp in his office instead. He had never heard a tube amp before - I'm not even sure he'd ever seen one. In the shop here there was a mint condition Ayon Spirit-1 integrated amp for sale and I thought it would be a good amp for him. I took it with me when I went home for Christmas to see if he would be interested in buying it. We put the Spirit into the system and it wasn't long after the amp had warmed up that he looked at me and said, "I only thought I knew what texture in music sounded like." Although he is new to this level of audio, he has good ears and just nailed it with that and a subsequent comment about the tube/Duelund combination: textured and organic. And that, I think is the best assessment of the Duelund VSF, and from reading this thread, I am sure is even moreso with the components higher up in the product line.
Now to the Silverline Bolero speakers I acquired. They use Dynaudio drivers, including the Esotar tweeter. The stock crossover uses two each: Solen caps, cement resistors, and I assume in-house wound inductors. The speakers sound nice, but what I really hear when I'm listening to them is potential. The Esotar tweeter handles everything I throw at it without strain, but I have a strong feeling that it is capable of much more than what I'm currently hearing.
For this project I am going to go outboard with the crossover. My first choice would be to use VSF copper capacitors, and Duelund inductors and resistors, but using those components in the crossover I have in mind, I estimate would put the cost at around $5000. I can't justify that cost so am going to have to make some compromises. I know that the main contributors to this thread have long since settled in on the excellent Duelund CAST components, but I would like seek your advice based your experience with very good components with which you had prior experience.
Here's what I am considering:
1. Capacitors: Each speaker uses one 4.7micF and one 15micF capacitor.
a. Mundorf MK Supreme. This would be the most economical of my group and I'm sure an improvement over the stock caps. Of my group it may be the best choice sonically too. I would appreciate your feedback.
b. Mundorf S/O. I've read this thread pretty much entirely and am aware of you and Tempo Electric having heard an upward tilt toward the high frequencies, though some disagreed. My experience was with the S/G/O and I certainly didn't care for what Tony Gee described as its "slight" emphasis in the treble. I noted too, however, that Tony Gee did not mention an upward tilt associated with this cap. As one comment on this thread mentioned, perhaps Tony Gee has a preference for a bit of an upward tilt, so he didn't think to mention it in his review of this cap, whereas what he described as a "slight" upward tilt with the S/G/O was just too much for me.
However, the SR17.5 speakers used the Dynaudio Esotec tweeter rather than the Esotar, and they are definitely different to my ears. I think of the Esotec as a high-revving Honda and the Esotar as a big Harley - just cruising along, never strained. If the S/O has an upward tilt, but less than the S/G/O, I may be okay given the way the Esotar is used in the Bolero... I read a comment in a review of the Bolero that Alan Yun seemed to operate the Esotar in such a way as to let it sing rather than its trying too hard to make a case for itself when compared directly to the Merlin VSM. In fact, the friend from whom I bought the Boleros used to own a pair of VSMs and said that their implementation of the Esotar was indeed entirely different.
c. Clarity Cap MR. I am intrigued by Tony Gee's mention of its ability to seperate instruments, but am concerned about his mention of "slight focus on the lower treble" for the reasons related to the S/G/O above. But if anyone would please share his experience with the MR it would be a big help. This cap is also available in 15micF so would be easier to deal with.
d. V-cap (Oil Impregnated Metalized Polypropylene) Series. This one intrigues me and I am tempted to fly blind and give it a shot. Does anyone have any comments about it? Also, some of the capacitors in this series have a breakdown voltage of 150VDC, is this enough? The VSF is 200VDC. Therefore, not knowing any better, if I were to go with these I'd use the ones with the 250VDC in parallel to achieve the required 15micF.
2. Resistors. I'm going to go with the Duelund CAST as I figure that I can install them in an outboard crossover without breaking the leads. I hope!
3. Inductors. Here's where I'm flying totally blind. In an email exchange with Alan Yun a while back about the inductors in the SR17.5, he mentioned that the internal resistance, inductance and capacitance were optimised and designed for the best synergy. He mentioned that a heavier gauge on the inductor would result in unwanted larger capacitance.
On this project, however, I'm going to go ahead and replace the inductors too. Instinctively I was thinking that I'd go with Alpha Core 12awg but PartsConnexion is carrying ERSE which they claim is a better and lower cost alternative. I guess I'd like to ask for comments related to:
- Alpha Core or ERSE, North Creek, or Mundorf Inductors
- And what are the benefits/penalties of increasing the awg of the inductors? I noted that the Duelund inductors are 12awg, so that again instinctively seems like maybe a good place for me to be as opposed to the NC 10awg or 8awg, but I would appreciate any advice.
Volleyguy, I also want to take this opportunity to commend you on an absolutely great thread. I spent several hours yesterday reading it from the very beginning. I learned a lot and really appreciate what you and all the others on this thread have shared.
Much thanks,
John |
Reynolds853,
I have a pair of North creek 8 gauge inductors left over from a project, yes an expensive left over! If your interested they are 1.5 mH, if these are too big you can have them sent for a small fee back to north creek and wound down to your needed size, but at least the copper is saved which is pricey in these. If interested make me an offer. Thanks |
Undertow,
Thank you for your reply and for the offer of your North Creek inductors. I have not measured the values of the inductors in the crossover yet, but I will certainly keep yours in mind if it looks like they will work.
I read your posts on this thread and found them very helpful, especially with regard to the Clarity MR caps. I may just go with all Clarity MR. However, I also read your comments about the combination of caps and was wondering if you would please give me your take on the below options. I haven't confirmed the crossover topology yet, but I am assuming the 15micF is associated with the midrange and the 4.7micF with the tweeter. The ratio of capacitor values were based on what was available on PartsConnexion:
1. midrange: 15micF Clarity MR
tweeter 4.7micF Clarity MR
2. midrange: 12micF Clarity MR + 3micF Duelund VSF
tweeter 4.7micF Duelund VSF
3. midrange: 12micF Clarity MR + 2 x 1.5micF Mundorf S/O
tweeter 4.7micF Clarity MR
Also, with regard to the inductors, if I do use an 8awg on the woofer, would it be advisable to use an 8awg for the midrange for consistency, or back off to 12awg, etc?
And finally, does the increase in gauge of the inductor increase the intensity, say of the bass, or does it just speed things up?
Thanks again for your help,
John |
Undertow,
Since posting my response last night I went out to the North Creek website and in their write-up they mentioned the 8&10awg inductors being associated with both the mid- and low-frequency drivers. Whichever I do, 8awg or 10awg, I think I'll use the same gauge with both drivers for consistency; and for this project I believe the North Creek is the right choice.
Also, the crossover in the Bolero is 1st order:
tweeter: RC
midrange: RLC
woofer: L
Of the following three options:
1:
midrange: 15micF Clarity MR
tweeter: 4.7micF Clarity MR
2:
midrange: 12micF Clarity MR + 3micF Duelund VSF
tweeter: 4.7micF Duelund VSF
3:
midrange: 12micF Clarity MR + 2 x 1.5micF Mundorf S/O
tweeter: 4.7micF Clarity MR
I think option No. 1 seems pretty straightforward, but I sure would appreciate your comments on Nos. 2 & 3.
Thanks again for your help. |
Well it is pretty obvious that all combos above would be in the upper echelon of possible crossover choices. I don't see anything wrong with the experiment, but again it all comes down to the total package and sound, and that can vary from design to design I am sure. I have used the Duelund, Clarity combo, but found that 100% Duelund or Clarity were better in my case overall. As for the bypass with the Silver oils and the Clarity MR's that is the best mid cost combo yet I have heard consistentently, and very organic with good dynamics never any edge.
As for the inductors basically the 8 gauge would be the lowest DCR I guess, and yes to some extent in woofers for bass specifically it can help enhance the resolution and lower power level output, in otherwords I recognized that listening at lower levels with these premium inductors helps, at higher levels of volume not as large of a gap. Anyway do some digging, and if you are interested in the pair of 8 gauge I would call northcreek and see what the cost would be for you to reuse them if they would wind them down to a smaller size if necessary, if you need larger than this would do you no good obviously and would be better off just ordering direct. I could ship them to north creek for you and they could ship back to you if it worked out that way. Let me know by email. Thanks |
By the way you plan to run outboard crossovers I assume? Plan for some VERY large outboards if you plan to use the 8 gauge inductors, the ones I have are the size of a Car battery each! |
Reynolds, Unless you plan on redesigning the crossover, the replacement inductor's DCR and inductance should be within 5% of the inductors you're replacing. I have used the Duelund, Clarity combo, but found that 100% Duelund or Clarity were better in my case overall. This is my experience as well. |
Undertow and Face,
Thank you both very much for your replies, they were very helpful. Based on your experience, for this project I'm going to go 100% Clarity MR.
As for the inductors, I was planning to match the manufacturer's values but experiment with a heavier gauge. But Face your comments are well received and appreciated. I figure that if I don't go too exotic then I can always backtrack without much loss. I don't know what the gauge of the wire used in the stock inductors in the Boleros is, but it looks pretty dinky. And Undertow, thanks for the warning about the size of the 8awg inductors. Once I had the required inductance values I was going to figure up the layout requirements, but something the size of a car battery is likely bigger than I would can use due to space constraints.
I was just looking at the U.K. site, hificollective, and the Mundorf 10&12awg foil inductors look interesting, particularly the 12awg as they are not too expensive should my foray outside the 5% DCR value Face recommended prove disastrous... and from looking at the stock inductors I'm assuming I'll end up outside that 5% boundary. The same would hold true for the more moderate gauge North Creek inductors too I think. I'm just going to have to get the inductance values I need and have a look at the dimensions of these options to see what's feasible for me.
Well, I think capacitors and resistors are settled: Clarity MR and Duelund CAST, respectively. I'll just have to decide between the North Creek wire and Mundorf foil coils.
I also want to say that, Undertow and Face, I have read all of your posts on this thread and they were exactly what I needed. For this project I needed to make the best compromise I could for cost/performance and I am very confident that the MR is the way to go. Thank you again for your help and for sharing your experience.
John |
Undertow and Face,
I don't think this is necessarily a good question as you probably don't have enough information about my system to provide the quality of answer you would prefer, but I'll ask anyway: Do you guys have a preference between wire versus foil inductors? It doesn't escape me that the Duelund is a foil inductor, so maybe the Mundorf foil might be a good compromise for me. But I also note that Undertow has used North Creek wire inductors before and that Face mentioned the Goertz Copper Foil inductor in one post.
Between the two types of inductors, what would you say are the trade offs?
Thanks again for your help,
John |
I have no experience with Mundorf foil inductors, only Goertz. The only advantage I can see is the ability to cover the top in hot glue, which almost solidifies the inductor, and protects it better against resonances. If I had the budget, I would use Duelund CAST inductors instead. |
Check out Solen Heptalitz inductors. I use them on the parts of my RSIIb crossovers that handle above 1000Hz, where their higher Q versus solid wire inductors comes into play. They sound spectacular for high mids and treble. They also have somewhat higher resistance for the same overall gauge versus solid wires, which helps to match the stock inductors better in some cases. I use Northcreek 12 gauge below 1000Hz in my speakers. |
Reynolds853,
I saw from your post you have a 4.7mF cap on the tweeter and a 15mF on the midrange. What mH is your inductor?
I have played around with some of the products you mention. I understand the cost factor. However, getting your speakers to where you will not part with them anytime soon will save you money in the long run.
From my experience the inductor provides as much, if not more, sonic improvement than the caps and resistors. If you save and go with the Clarity MR caps (good value) over the VSF then you might consider using the Duelund Cast Inductor. Once you hear, or I should say don't, you will realize how noisy other inductors are in comparison. |
I can tell you this, I have had the experience of the 8 gauge north creeks vs. the Alpha core / which are probably more or less identical to the Mundorf copper foils. The 8 gauge could have a litte more punch, however the Copper foils can be a little more organic, and "Forgiving" which is a safer bet for many speakers I am sure. Nothing wrong with the 12 gauge copper ribbons as they are overkill for most any application you can throw them at. |
Face, Ait, Irish65 and Undertow,
I wanted to thank you all for your replies, each was very helpful. While I would love to use Duelund CAST in part or all of this project, unfortunately my budget priorities preclude it. I believe, however, that with the advice I am getting here I can arrive at a very musically satisfying crossover that I will enjoy for years, and I may indeed upgrade it again to include some CAST components.
I haven't measured the values of the inductors yet but was planning to send them off to have that done more accurately than what I think we could do in the shop here in town. As Undertow suggested I did a bit more digging and basically found that there doesn't seem to be a clear cut answer as to which is better it seems application driven but the film inductor being a little more organic really hits home with me. I may try the 10awg Mundorf film just to do it, but I'm sure the 12awg would indeed already be overkill. I recently put some Telefunken ribbed plates in my monoblocks and feel that I have some system dynamics to spare, so moving more in the organic direction of the film inductor rather than more punchy should be the right move.
I'm sure that either of the inductors I am considering will be better than what's currently in there. I figure too that making such a radical change in the inductor, particularly in terms of DCR, will have a big effect on the speakers. I had avoided doing this on the 17.5s, staying instead with the stock inductors. But as organic as those speakers sounded, it just didn't seem that the midrange/woofer driver had an engine behind it that would let it keep up with the speed that the Duelund VSF brought to the tweeter. It's somewhat of a shot in the dark, but that's what I want to see with my first pass at the inductors on this project will the large gauge film inductors take the system in a faster and more organic direction.
Again, thanks so much to each of you, you have been a HUGE help.
John |
