At least relative to our components, avoid metal enclosures unless they are of the diamagnetic type such as copper.
Steen himself made wood enclosures, that were painted on the inside with graphite. He would literally make his own using graphite powder.
A fun experiment, is to remove the metal lid on your cd-player, amplifier etc. Then substitute with a wooden lid with either a copper shield or graphite painting on the inside.
It can make a very large difference, but is of course for the more tweaky inclined. And as always, experiment at your own risk. :)
Moreover,
I thought this thread had ended, you guys are fantastic! |
Duelund not ended yet!
I have a parallel tweeter inductor coming from you and have bought some Duelund Silver 2.0 from Irish65 for speaker wire. So at least two more tests. |
I'm aware of the parallel inductor, don't get that many orders for 1... ;)
Sure beats 0 though.
I tend to conclude, it's either volleyguy, or we have a serious mono enthusiast among our clients. |
Hello Gents from Duelund
So the use of non ferrous materials for a chassis is most acceptable. I suppose its up to the listener now to decide which material within this group is most musical to their ears.
Would you now answer how the choice of doping material used to reduce mechanical resonance will influence the Q factor of an inductor? And secondly is it better to have a high Q or a lower Q inductor for use within a speaker crossover design? Thanks very much. Tom |
Are we talking about the pure Q factor of an inductor or a mechanical Q? |
Duelund it is me.
I am just unsure what a parallel part is going to do. (i.e. waste of money?) |
Some parallel functions show remarkable improvements in sound, when using better parts. It all depends what parallel function we are talking about? |
Duelund Gents,
Will the natural Q factor of a inductor be reduced with doping such as the material you apply to your product? Is the mechanical Q the resonant energy curve of the device and would doping serve to flatten and broaden this curve? Asking about the use of inductors in a loudspeaker not a rf device. Thanks Tom |
Just because it's a parallel circuit does not mean it's out of the signal path. |
Audiotweak,
It's an interesting question. Steen's ideas were based upon the assumption that mechanical control would result in electrical ditto - which would lead to assume that the Q factor would be influenced. I have been unable to find clear conclusions towards this in his written work that I have access to. |
Face
I agree but have been led to believe it is not as important. (why I did not change the inductor before) Does that mean can not hear it or just not as critical?
I guess I will find out.
I have to admit I am very curious.
I have some friends just laughing at the idea of Silver wire coated in Silk wrapped in cotton(which I am excited about) and being able to hear the difference big time. They just laugh! Oddly enough the same friend after hearing my system said "it does not even sound like a stereo" spent many a nights up to 2-4am looking (and bought) (I would get the 4am e-mails) the same gear. He drove up 10 hours each way to the U.S. to get it as well. I told him not the gear but the parts.
I do not think he fully can wrap his head around that though that it is the parts. He really struggles with the idea that 2k (used for sure) for the speakers and 4k for parts after. |
Gentlemen,
For my crossover one of the required capacitor values is 15micF, which is an available value in a single Clarity MR.
However, I came across a website (reference and excerpt below) in which the author said that for values above 10micF it is better to use several smaller value capacitors rather than a single large value capacitor.
I was wondering if you would please comment on this?
As always, thanks for your help,
John
Reference: http://audio.calsci.com/X-Overs2b.html
10th & 11th paragraphs:
"Whenever you need a capacitor over about 10µF, it's best to build up the capacitor from several smaller capacitors...
"The reason for adding up many small capacitors is that the capacitors have inductance and lead resistance, which make the capacitor less useful. When you place resistors and inductors in parallel, their effect shrinks, but the capacitor's effects add. So, building up large capacitors by placing several small capacitors in parallel makes our capacitors act more like perfect capacitors. This is a good thing." |
Gentlemen,
Subsequent to my earlier post, I noted that Clarity MR is available in 7.5micF, so my question would come down to whether it is better to use two of those or a single 15micF?
Thanks,
John |
My ears have told me this before that I can hear the time shift blurrr of multi caps. Tom |
Tom, thanks for your response, that certainly makes the crossover more straightforward. |
I'm new here, but would like to share the results of an experiment described below that showed to me that a cap constructed out of several, smaller (different value) capacitors put in parallel offered a superior result over the single value cap. With all the smaller caps being of the same brand and type that is!! So my estimate is that 2 x 7,5 uF will have a better result than the single 15 uF. Even better will be something like 1x 8,0 and 1x 4,7 and 1 x 2,2 and...
About one year ago a friend and I, who share the same speaker (the infamous magnetostatic Apogee Scintilla, 1 ohm version), made an extensive comparison between multiple caps in parallel versus a single cap. Capacitors used in this experiment: copper cased ObbligatoÂ’s and Sonicaps. First we tested the caps in the treble section.
The ScintillaÂ’s treble section (6 dB slope, >3000 Hz) contains two 10 uF caps. We made an external set up in which we could switch quickly between the two 10 uF caps constructed with:
1) single 10 uF Sonicaps
2) single 10 uF ObbligatoÂ’s
3) 10 uF caps built up out of ObbligatoÂ’s: 4 x 2,2 uF, 2 x 0,47 uF and 2 x 0,047 uF
We played some cdÂ’s with a lot of HF information. Especially a cd with metal bells hit by a metal stick reveiled some interesting differences.
The difference between the single Sonicaps and single Obbligato’s turned out to be relatively small with the Obbligato being the better cap. I feel our result was in about the same league as the judging of Tony Gee (8,5 versus 10) (google for captest and humblehomemadehifi). The biggest difference however was between the single cap and the multiple cap. The multiple cap turned out to reveil micro-detail like the “singing” of the metal after it was hit, much better than the single cap. Also the spatial information was better with the multiple cap, the soundstage expanded in all directions compared to the single cap. The most prominent feature however I experienced was that the music as a whole became more enjoyable/natural sounding. Of course it is very hard to tell, but I would not be surprised that the performance of a multiple Obbligato in Tony’s test would have been rewarded somewhere around a 12-13.
In front of the midribbon of the Scintilla (300 – 3000Hz) is one big capacitor: 240 uF (yep, I’m saving my money to have this cap one day replaced by a multiple parallel Duelund CAST Ag PIO...). In the stock Apogee xover this cap already is a multiple cap (24 x 10 uF metalized polypropylene Sprague’s in parallel). My friend replaced these Sprague’s a few years ago by Sonicaps (24x 10 uF) and he was very pleased with the result of this. Recently he took out 30 uF of Sonicaps and replaced these by multiple Obbligato’s. This experiment turned out to be very dissapointing. Disappointing as especially some strange things happened to the imaging. It shifted. After a few weeks the Sonicaps were put back in place and the problem was solved.
This experiment made me conclude that 1) multiple parallel caps perform significantly better than single caps, and 2) it is essential to use one brand/type of capacitor.
BTW: I think it was on the Duelund website that I once noticed a picture of a xover made by some super-high-end loudspeaker company that built their caps with different value VSF-caps...
Kees |
After reading most of this thread and many others I recently decided to change the capacitors in my Meadowlark Blue Heron's from the stock Auricaps to Ampohm paper in oil aluminum foil. I was expecting a moderate improvement as the Ampohm's scored only a few points better than than the Auricaps in Tony G's assessment. I was surprised at the drastic changes the Ampohms offered. Much improved texture and not at the expense of detail but just the opposite. Everything sounds much more refined, detailed, and just plain real. I settled on the Ampohms over Mundorf and Clarity MR as they are about a third of the price and equivalently rated. Unfortunately, Ampohm is out of business but the tube store has stock remaining. Really, the single best investment for the money I've made in my system. Which has me thinking of changing the coupling caps in an Audio Research VT 50 to possibly Clarity Caps I'm a little worried about PIO in a warm and high voltage environment. Any thoughts or suggestions would be much appreciated. |
The difference in score that Tony describes between the Ampohm and Auricap (respectively 12- and 9) makes me expect to hear a significant improvement with the Ampohm...
Of course the differences you hear between the caps are very much related to the quality of the entire system as well. The better that system, the more it will be able to reveal the differences between the different caps. |
K2,
Thanks for your response and your experience is certainly something that I will keep in mind if I don't like the results of my first iteration.
John |
An often overlooked part in this discussion seems to be the quality of and/or discrepancy between solderings.
We have clients who use per example 1uFx15uF instead of one 15uF. All things being equal this means they are substituting pure metal foil with 30 solder joints or so. If nothing else, those joints better be 100%. |
But are all parameters equal Frederik?
I've got little technical knowledge on this matter but I would expect the 15 x 1 uF multiple cap to have a (even) lower inductance and resistance than the single 15 uF.
All caps suffer from some kind of resonance. The PIO types, and especially the ones created under high vacuum, I expect to have a relatively low resonance, and maybe their resonance will be somewhere in the audiospectrum where it affects the musical result to a lesser extent, but they will suffer from some kind of resonance as well. Maybe, maybe the multiple cap constructed with smaller value caps will have an even more benign resonance character than one big cap.
I think you're completely right about the necessity of having good soldering joints. Experienced this myself with the Scintilla xover (tortured by relatively high currents because of its < 1 ohm impedance) on several occasions. However with a single cap in a xover I expect that good soldering joints are at least as critical... A poor connection with one of the 1 uF caps and the other 14 uF caps connected properly will probably have a better result than a poor connection with a single 15 uF cap.
Kees |
K2, Thank you for the response any suggestions on the coupling caps? Should i expect to hear a similar level of improvement? The vt50 currently has four .86 infinicaps. |
Hi Cady,
I haven't got experience with coupling caps. Never tried it out as for this application the experiences in general are not positive with multiple parallel caps. And it probably will be even more worse with multiple parallel caps built with different brands/types.
Kees |
Kees,
I didn't mean that all parameters were in fact equal. I just meant that, it's a consideration that you substitute pure foil in the case of our caps with solder joints. Don't get me wrong, I'd rather sell 15 1s than 1 15... ;) |
For my speakers I want to maintain as precisely as possible the original 1800Hz and 3500Hz crossover points. For the capacitors and inductors I will certainly maintain their original values, but I am wondering if I should be thinking too of the overall resistance of the original crossover – should I maintain that as well?
The speaker has a 1st order crossover:
Tweeter: capacitor and resistor
Mid-range: capacitor, resistor ,inductor
Woofer: inductor
Let's say the tweeter circuit has a stock capacitor with a resistance of 2ohms and the resistor has a resistance of 2ohms giving a total of 4ohms. If the new capacitor I install has a resistance of 3ohms, should I decrease the resistor to 1ohm to maintain the 4ohm total for the circuit? The same question would apply to the capacitor associated with the mid-range driver.
For the inductors, I plan to use larger gauge coils than those that are in the speaker now, hence introducing lower resistance components. Should I add a resistor in series with each inductor to maintain the total resistance of those circuit branches?
Since I plan to use Duelund CAST resistors, I'm sure I would be able to request resistors with values permitting me to maintain the original total resistance of each component, but I am wondering if I am correct in thinking about it this way?
The alternative I think would be to just install RLC components that maintain the original values and let the overall resistance of each circuit drift a little from its original value.
I appreciate your recommendations, and as always, thanks for your help,
John |
Hi Frederik,
One 15 uF cap has two soldering joints and 15 x 1 uF has 30 soldering joints?
This is correct of course but do you expect a change in soundquality because of the difference in number of the soldering joints? With capacitors in series I can see the increase of soldering joints can be an issue, however with capacitors in parallel I expect the larger number of soldering joints is less of a problem.
I've experienced the sonic effect of bad soldering joints in speaker xovers and at this point I fully agree with you. I can't be stated enough to pay good attention to it (especially when you use the more difficult to work with high Ag content solder). Bad joints result in lousy sound with strange effects on soundstaging.
The difference in the number of soldering joints I expect however not to be responsible for the good effects that I experienced with multiple parallel caps (a cap built with different values and all being of the same type/manufacturer).
The picture of a multiple parallel VSF-cap (the manufacturer used large values in combination with smaller values) I once saw on the internet (I think it was the Duelund-site) fascinated me. If the results are similar to those I experienced with the Obbligato's, I expect the transparancy of the Duelund cap will increase even further. I would be interested to know how for instance a 10 uF CAST Cu PIO helds up to 2,2 and 8,0 uF CAST Cu PIO.
As this forum is visited by quite a lot of Duelund afficianados that are willing to invest a lot of money on caps I was hoping that one of them would be in for the test ;-)
Kees |
Is there a third Dueland cap called 'Black'? If so, where can I find more information?
Thanks.
Jay |
Regarding my last post, I figured out the answer so would ask that no one waste their time writing a reply.
Jburidan,
There is a "Black" capacitor described on the Duelund website:
"The new VSF Black series, designed to fit between our VSF and CAST series. The black finish is the result of a light (or dark...) CASTing, resulting in a more resonance damped VSF cap, pushing the audio performance closer to the CAST."
The website says that it's ready to be ordered. |
Gentlemen,
Is PVC an acceptable material for a potting container?
Thanks,
John |
I had some kind words from Irish on this thread and how it has helped people. I can say the original intention was there would one guys log on parts (start to finish) I did not think there would be so much great info from so many people or it would be so long.
I just spent so many hours reading on the net before ordering my first parts for testing in the crossover and could not find any on going kind of debate or what the buyer felt about the part after a period of time.
It was a fellow poster on here that got me try a Duelund VSF for the tweeter. I truly really thought I was throwing my money away with an oh well attitude. At the time many people said as long as the uf value was the same anything would do.
I think this thread has if one thing once and for all changed that idea. At almost 200,000 visits it has been seen quite a bit for an obscure subject as speaker parts.
I think we all really owe Steen a great deal. I think even for the ones not using his company's parts he as far as I know he single handily changed the whole notion on parts. 50% of your $ on speakers and 50% of that one crossover parts. (at the time a crazy notion)
When the Silver wire gets here from Irish I will have followed Steen's path almost right to the end. Almost no stranded wire left. (a little in the amp)
Almost no plastic. Just have to get some Duelund IC's some day. |
When I read IC's I though you meant integrated circuits...
That would be a stretch. :) |
Will someone please comment on the sound of the Duelund Black as compared to the Duelund Cast PIO Copper? Also,l what's the material difference between the two? |
Wire here in the next couple of days.
Not sure about tweeter inductor? |
Wire in and I will be installing tomorrow.
Long story and I thought a friend who brought it back from the U.S. lost it.
The 2.0 has two layers of cotton compared to the .5 and of course thicker wire.
Anyone know the difference from version 1 and version 2?
Does not have as much smell as .5? Not sure why? Extra layer of cotton? |
It's not cotton -it's silk. |
I have been listening for a few days to the wire comparison. It is just against Linn 12 guage which cost around $3 per foot so at Duelund price for Silver x2 it should be a LOT better.
I will say it sounds like two speakers out of phase. Likely caused by resistance difference.
Silver is NOT bright that is for sure. Not sure where it gets that reputation?
There is much less high freq noise or what I thought might have been tape hiss?
Stranded copper favours as it did in the internal wire it's own freq. which is the highs. The Silver sounds much more liquid top to bottom.
There is more tighter dynamic bass. Actually more dynamic across the range.
I do find myself thinking about turning up the treble though. I seen Duelund once selling a really high end tweeter. |
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. |
Volleyguy,
What you're hearing is the absence of plastic around the wire.
Also what you're not hearing, brightness, less treble etc. Are again plastic induced artifacts that are suddenly no longer present, nor should they be, they were never on the recording in the first place.
Dgarretson,
I did the exact same thing first time I got cables from Steen Duelund, everything seems relaxed and slower, somewhat akin to the musicians being at ease with what they do as opposed to beginners who may sound hurried and flustered, everything gains an understanding and sense of aahh there it is...
I know this may sound strange but many have commented the exact same thing, when removing plastic from their systems.
Duelund himself talked about a lack of echo effect, he theorized plastic was inducing. |
Dgarretson
I am not sure that the air will come around? Duelund has a signature sound for sure. Or one could say plastic has a signature depends on point of view.
When listening to Miles Davis the wire changes everything.
Almost re-aranging who gets top billing. I can not imagine that Miles was giving top billing to the drummer with the cymbal, high hat and snare drum? This would be putting himself, John Coltrane, Cannonball Adderley and Bill Evans all in the background?
With the stranded copper the piano sounds like in an echo chamber. Just a joke.
Stranded (at least with plastic) seems to favour it's own freq. (the high)
I notice a big difference in dynamics! I assume this is because of the lack of echo? Silver sounds much more alive.
Without a doubt no one can think it sounds the same!
I remember getting the first CAST tweeter cap and being shocked. Soooo quiet and yet clearer? Yet part of me missed the "air". (even the air added by the VSF)
The wire does take getting used too. The highs although maybe do not have the same air are clearer. |
The order is being sent from Parts Connexion for the for the tweeter inductor.
Once that goes in I will have only 2 parts left that are not Duelund (in one side). One cap in the amp and the autoformer.
A friend was by that bought the same speakers etc. He hears the wire difference which I think is very big but he thought it sounded fantastic even before. He did notice more bass with the Silver wire and not as bright. |
Duelund tweeter inductor is in.
It must weight 50x the original one. Not sure what that is going to mean sound wise? |
I have been thinking on the solid silver wire.
Dynamics are greatly improved. Why?
I think the plastic coated stranded wire slows the low frequency more. Dynamics are of course affected by low frequency more than highs.
Can thin stranded wire carry a low frequency signal as well? I do not think so. I can really hear bass tone that I could not before. The stranded seems to chop it up.
For a while I have liked the solid silver wire sound better. More relaxing to
listen to.
Tomorrow I am installing the tweeter inductors. I expect to |
Sorry just learning how to use an iPad.
I expect less noise from the Duelund inductor because of better construction but am curious going from thin wire wound wax paper inductor to foil type what type of change there? After all it is a tweeter inductor not carry any low frequencies? |
The Duelund tweeter inductor is installed.
The construction is of course very close to the vintage that was there. Both are wire wrapped around cardboard. coated in wax. The vintage is solid wire and very thin guage. The Duelund is of course foil wire and heavier guage.
The Duelund is MUCH bigger and heavier and better built. The vintage is not as tight with the wax maybe allowing some resonance? I bet the vintage though is still better than most any inductor built today as at least it is wax paper. (some way to deal with resonance)
The initial sound impression is the Duelund sounds hotter. The lower DCR? (not sure) I was thinking it would be quieter (because of better resonance control) more laid back and was not sure I wanted to go that way. It is the opposite meaning more signal to the tweeter.
This may make sense as the Duelund solid wire (used internally) cut the high freq and did not sound quite right. (to me)
This is a parallel tweeter inductor and my initial thought is these parts did not matter so much, yet the sound is very different! Not sure yet what is all means but for sure very different. So these parts DO make a difference. It sounds like more signal getting through which is what the woofer inductor change sounded like.
Was the thin vintage wire cutting back the signal? (I think so)
I was up buying connectors from the local stereo store for this job and I can not believe how far my system sounds compared to store. $10k systems sound literally like clock radios. |
|
Jburidan
Lower resistance in the tweeter inductor maybe. I should measure both to be accurate.
In the woofer the (thin wire) iron core wire wound and Duelund Air core were almost exactly the same.
I changed that part with less hesitation because of same DCR. |
First off with all my experience in hand you are going in the right direction minus one thing. If your using 100% the original Klipsch crossover schematic theme on the tweeter than you will get into trouble, meaning they normally only use a single resistor to cut db right at the input of the positive lead going into the crossover section.
What first needs to happen is dump the resistor on the front of the crossover all together. You are restricting the pure capability of the far superior Caps and inductors your loading behind it.
You need to put an "L Pad" at the output of the crossover right before the tweeter driver itself. The results far more natural and wider sound as your allowing the full crossover to saturate with power from the amp itself feeding it, and at the same time not reaping havoc on the impedance the amp is feeding back.
Fact is I had a klipsch horn that was running hot in the first place. It used a single 2 ohm resistor cutting the whole signal right at the input terminal the amp first sees feeding your crossover, which being hooked in parallel with the tweeter, Mid, and Woofer network actually adjusts the signal to all your crossover inputs in my opinion from listening!
If your using Duelund Resistors I will say this vs. Mundorf or Mills I have used they are slightly more "Transparent" in audiophile terms, and "Bright" in Layman terms.
For example my 2 ohm resistor in the original design was cutting lets say 2 to 3 db. However I found with a Duelund I needed to cut 4.5 to 5 db as its just more out of the signal not damping it as much from my experience, this can be a gift or a careful what you ask for result.
Online you will find a debate about the L pad and its placement that should be AFTER the crossover on any design, not BEFORE the crossover as most generic crossovers do in fact have. Huge difference as now you are loading those expensive caps and high current is really feeding the whole system this way.
Also online you will find several L pad calculators that are easy to use, you plug in the 8 ohm impedance you want, and tell it how much DB you want to cut. It will spit out the Parallel resistor and Series resistor Values that should be used. This is the same formula regardless what speaker you use power cutting is the same on all designs, not saying the same amount of power cutting but the same way to cut it with any L pad vs. just a single series resistor.
Trust me it is FAR superior. I was actually cutting with a single 10 ohm vs. the 2 ohm originally, what a mistake it was cutting the bass, tweeter everything across the board as it was raising the impedance too much at the amp tap. Put the L pad after the crossover and with the correct value and the amp will see it as transparent totally making the speaker balance out to its optimum, and you get full use of those expensive crossover components. |
Undertow you must not be using the simple "A" or "AA" in your Klipsch? There is no resistor at all. Very basic circuit. The "A" even simplier.
Undertow I do agree with Duelund being "transparent". They seem to get more signal though whether it is the caps or wire or inductors.
I really should measure the two inductors to see. I am trying to get the measurement off the vintage. The Duelund of course is in the speaker. |
DCR is flavour changes and once I get to that then I will be done. I only want quality improvements. (which I have got)
The friend who was over listening (and buying my old speaker wire making room for the Duelund Silver) owns a set of Khorns think both sides (of mine) sound amazing. (his are just stock) To me the Silver Wire makes a big difference.
I am getting near the end though and I know it. Changing the parallel tweeter inductor was one of the last parts not Duelund.
I would say to anyone wathcing this thread that parallel parts do not give the same Wow! as series parts. They affect the sound at some %, just not sure how much compared to series parts. Maybe a guess later?
Even going from a Duelund VSF tweeter cap to CAST had me put my ear to the tweeter to see what was going on. (big difference) Nothing like that with parallel tweeter inductor.
Chris at parts connexion looked over my schematics and said not to go crazy with this part. Good advice.
|
I might have found my first Duelund part not working in this application?
The inductor sounds bright and agressive. I am going to check some tubes to make sure all is Ok but just changed power output tubes not long ago. The inductor makes the speaker much louder than the other and not a nice loud.
The last time I changed the DCR with the North Creek in the woofer it did not work out well at all either. DCR from what I have seen is not something to mess with. Even a better part will not sound right? |
