There are a lot of manufacturers, I've used MG Chemicals and GC Electronics epoxies in the past. I'd go with a clear epoxy to avoid any possible ill effects from the filling pigments. I don't see an issue with putting a tube in the center to reduce the volume.
Yes, ABS plastic. Do a search on the net, there are many suppliers of ABS containers, in an almost infinite array of shapes and sizes, with and without lids. You need to figure out the size you need based on the components you want to pot.
If you have a source of vacuum like a vacuum pump and a vacuum container or oven you could pot the item and then draw down a vacuum to assist with the penetration and air bubble removal. Gentle heating can also help with air bubble removal, although it shortens the available working time (pot life). There are even automated industrial vacuum potting systems that maintain the resins and target objects under vacuum during the entire process, but that's only useful if you have access to something like that.
You may want to practice on one of your smaller reject coils first - you wouldn't want to mess up a nice Northcreek. |
Ait and Irish,
Thank you for your suggestions regarding the potting compound idea, and I apologize for not acknowledging your suggestions before now. I didn't immediately comprehend your suggestion, but I got it now. For this project I am not going to use the stock inductors, but constructing my own improvised CAST-like inductor with whatever new inductors I get is an intriguing idea. I may not pursue it, but I'd like to understand your idea a bit more. Since we're talking about loosely wound wires, here's my loosely wound notes and questions!:
- Is the potting compound you have in mind 3M DP270?
- I wanted to confirm, by ABS, do you mean acrylonitrile butadiene styrene, and where does one find such containers?
- I noted on the North Creek website that their inductors are varnish sealed in a vacuum chamber so that the varnish penetrates into the inner coils.
- In a previous post on this thread regarding his CAST components, Frederick mentioned, The CAST is special in the sense that we can harden it after the vacuum impregnation. If Duelund's CAST material is similar to the DP270, then I could well imagine it being a more robust compound than varnish penetrating into the inner coils, but I believe I understand why you were thinking of the potting compound as an additional step taking the inductor in the direction of the CAST system.
- I am intrigued with the idea of doing this with a North Creek inductor. Once I get my inductors measured and the dimensions of the equivalent 10awg and 12awg inductors, I'll calculate the volume of potting compound required. Perhaps an ABS tube down the center of the inductor would be okay to take up some volume, thus reducing the amount of potting compound required to cover the inductor?
- If I go with Mundorf coils it doesn't look like there's any chance of the potting compound penetrating to the inner coils, but the North Creek website mentions possible oxidation issues with foil inductors so the potting compound would certainly eliminate that issue.
This is a really neat suggestion, and as always I thank you for your time and help.
John |
Greetings, I've been following this thread, checking in every once in a while, and am wondering if some of you may have compared Mundorf foil, Goertz foil and the Duelands, all copper?
I'm working on a couple speaker projects and already have Dueland 5.0uF CAST caps on the way but am curious about other's experiences with inductors.
The speakers, 2-way satellites, use a Hiquphon OW4, 3/4" soft-dome tweeter and 5.5" ScanSpeak mid-woofer that's transmission line loaded. The external first order series crossover uses two inductors and one cap, that's it, no resistors on the tweeter mucking things up.
I've already built a couple pairs of these and in the past have used Mundorf Silver/Oil caps and Goertz 12AWG copper foil inductors. I'll add that I'm not unhappy with the results but.... having followed this thread and hearing so many good things about the Duelands, curiosity "forced" me to purchase their CAST caps.
All values being equal, I can't imagine there's a whole lot of sonic difference between the Mundorf copper foil inductor and the Goertz? I've been using Goertz for many years and never felt they were lacking. The Dueland CAST on the other hand, with its "proprietary" damping process, looks to be a different animal? At their price, anybody taken the plunge?
One last thing, while the comparisons may have been discussed earlier in this thread, who's got time to go back and read all the responses? I'd really appreciate any info/opinions from experienced users.
Regards! |
Ait,
You and I think alike in that regard but I don't think Reynolds853 wants to purchase 16 gallons of potting compound. |
Irish, you can buy potting epoxy in bulk for bigger jobs at a somewhat lower price per unit volume. I've seen up to 16 gallon containers from MG chemicals. It's not really cheap, but it's a lot cheaper than new Duelund or
Northcreek 8 gauge inductors.
In any case, just a thought. |
Irish and Ait,
Thank you both for your replies and for your suggestions about the inductors. My primary motivation for this project is not actually the improvements brought by the inductors per se but rather the improvements that I know an upgrade in capacitors and resistors will make.
On the earlier SR17.5 speaker project, that speaker was a 2-way monitor with a 1st order crossover. There was a single capacitor and resistor going to the tweeter, and a single inductor on the mid/bass driver. I heard the benefit from the capacitor/resistor change, but decided that if I ever did anything like this again that I was going to replace the inductors as well, it is only a question of which type to use.
The experience you and others have shared on this thread has been tremendously helpful and appreciated. I know that I am not going to get the improvements I would if I were to use Duelund (I'm a big fan of that company and its products) but I am confident that I am on a path that will yield very good crossover nonetheless.
Again, thank you for sharing your experience and for taking the time to post your response.
John |
Correction of my last post. It should say" While your at it" not "While your add it". |
Ait,
I was going to mention that also but the 3m product to use costs around 15.00-20.00 per tube. From my experience you would need around (5) tubes to do a 14 awg 1.2mH inductor properly. While your add it cut channels for the inductor wire to travel, in the botton of the xover box, and fill this channel with the potting compound. |
A cheap experiment might be to just pot the stock inductors in some type of ABS container using epoxy potting compound. That will eliminate the noise from vibrating loosely-wound coils and give some of the effect of a CAST-type inductor while keeping the same inductance and DCR value. If you're just going to toss them then it might be an interesting experiment anyway. |
John,
That being your experience with the inductors I would suggest getting the inductors first. Leave the rest of the Xover as is just change out the inductors.
Let it settle in then evaluate them if they bring any improvement. If you like what they bring to the table then get the Clarity MR 4.7uF cap for the tweeter. I mention this first because this is where you mentioned in your post above that the tweeter with the Duelund cap was faster than the mids/bass because of the inductor.
Once you install them leave them for a few hundred hours and continue to evaluate what you are hearing. If you are happy with it then get the 15uF Clarity MR caps followed by the Cast resistors.
The benefits of this approach is you will gain a working knowledge of what each part in a Xover contributes to the overall sonics and what effect they have on each other. Also you won't put out the scratch for the costly 15uF Clarity MR caps prematurely. |
Undertow,
Thank you for your reply, and I apologize for the confusion - I sure wasn't clear what I was talking about in my previous post. The current project involves my pair of Silverline Bolero speakers which still has the 100% stock crossover in it.
The VSF capacitor I mentioned in the previous post went into an earlier set of speakers, a pair of Silverline SR17.5 (2-way) monitor speakers that I ended up selling to a friend to help fund my acquisition of the Boleros. I was trying to relate, albeit poorly, that on the earlier SR17.5 project I had kept the original inductor on the mid/bass driver. The original inductor used a small gauge wire. While the tweeter ended up with a very fast and organic sound thanks to the Duelund capacitor, it always seemed to me that the mid/bass driver couldn't keep up with the Duelund's speed - that it needed a bigger engine behind it.
The Silverline Bolero speaker's stock inductors use a similarly small gauge wire, so on this project I want to make sure that I give the woofer and midrange drivers a more potent engine. That's why I am focused on the larger gauge inductors.
I have not made my final decision on the inductors, but your experience with the 8awg North Creeks compared to the 12awg film inductors was exactly the information I needed to help me make my decision.
I still need to measure the values of the inductors currently in the speakers. If I can match those values using large gauge inductors (10awg) that will fit in the outboard crossover enclosure I have in mind, then the crossover I have envisioned is:
Capacitors: 100% Clarity MR
Resistors: 100% Duelund CAST
Inductors: 100% 10awg Mundorf film
I recognize that with this crossover I am not going to achieve the same results as going 100% Duelund, especially CAST, but I am confident it will be a big improvement over the crossover that's in the speakers now while at the same time fitting within my budget for this project.
I want to thank you again for your time and help, and I apologize for the confusion caused by my previous post.
Best regards,
John |
Your saying you have Duelunds on the Tweeters already? If so leave them, when I say 100% one or the other I mean don't mix 2 caps on one Driver, so just go Clarity MR's on the Mids and Woofs then just fine and leave the single Duelund cap on the Tweeter first, thats perfectly fine. I just would not do some kinda 2nd 3rd or 4th order type crossover with more than one cap in the path mixed on one Driver. No reason to waste a perfectly fine Duelund on the tweeter if its complete right now, and just use the MR's on the rest of the drivers is my suggestion, unless I am mis-reading this. Good Luck |
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 |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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 |
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 |
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. |
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! |
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 |
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. |
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 |
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 |
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 |
Volleyguy,
It's a new entry level copper coupling cap. |
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. |
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? |
|
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) |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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 |
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. |
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! |
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 |
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? |
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. |
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 :-) |
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 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. |
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 |
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. |
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. |
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 |
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, 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. |
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 |
