Xover parts quality,/sound difference?


Whats your opinion on the quality of xover parts used in a speaker. Make any difference in sound?
bartokfan

Showing 8 responses by sean

JD: I wish that you would have mentioned doing this sometime previously. Gradually bringing the voltage up to or very near the rated voltage on the caps allows them to fully form prior to installation. This drastically reduces break-in time, allowing one to see what the speakers can do far sooner with mucy more uniform performance. I would have been glad to either have done this for you with your caps or lent you a power supply. Then again, some folks don't feel comfortable playing around with multiple hundreds of volts : )

Either way, i'm glad that you're getting the results that you desired and you found this to be a worthwhile investment. Sean
>
Different parts in the crossover will result in different sound most definitely. It is not even a matter of different parts, but even how those identical parts could be laid out and / or connected to each other. If i were to show pictures of some of the crossovers that i've taken apart and rebuilt / re-designed, it would blow your mind. Just because you're paying "big bucks" for "high end" stereo gear doesn't mean that you are getting what you paid for. This is especially true with speakers. Sean
>
"Wasting all your money on exotic caps in a low pass circuit usually makes no sense unless there is a specific design need for it"

Have you ever measured the losses through a typical electrolytic as compared to a group of ganged "exotic" caps? These losses become self-evident when the speaker drivers and cabinet alignment are up to the task. Problem is, most speaker systems lack proper transient response at low frequencies, hence the difference between caps getting lost in the "mud" & "smearing" that emanates from such a design.

If one has some parts laying about with ( near ) identical values in an "exotic" and electrolytic cap, and you have a variable voltage power supply with a meter, try the following.

Place the electrolytic cap on the power supply with the supply turned all the way down. Gradually bring the power supply up in steps, paying attention to the voltage as it tracks upward. So long as the cap is in decent shape and not ancient, bring the voltage up to or just below the rated voltage. Double check the voltage reading on the meter and let it sit for half an hour or so. Then come back and check your voltage reading again. In most cases, the voltage will have climbed noticeably higher than where you left it. Remove the cap, but don't discharge it.

Use the same approach as above, but replace the electrolytic with the "exotic" cap. Step the voltage up and watch as the cap tracks the voltage climb. Bring the voltage up to the same point where you originally stopped with the electrolytic i.e. just at or slighlty below the rated voltage on the electrolytic. Now let the cap sit for half an hour on the power supply.

When you come back, you'll find that the voltage is still very close to where you originally set it. Unlike the electrolytic, there should be very little "voltage creep" after the initial setting. That's because most "exotic" caps have FAR better transient response and / or "loading characteristics". This translates sonically into sharper transients with less time induced smearing. Remove the cap, without discharging it, and let it sit next to the electrolytic. Obviously, you don't want these laying about where someone can get "whacked" by touching the charged caps.

After several days, come back to the caps and measure their voltages. What you'll find is that the "exotic" cap has retained very close to the full charge whereas the electrolytic has lost quite a bit of voltage. This has to do with internal losses in the electrolytic. Just as the electrolytic has a higher voltage loss, it also has a higher signal loss too.

The end result is that, using "exotic" caps anywhere / everywhere in a crossover circuit, and they really don't have to be all that "exotic" in terms of price, is lower loss with improved transient response. As previously mentioned, the rest of the circuit / speaker design has to be up to the task of revealing the differences / benefits in such a change. Otherwise, one really is wasting their money using these "higher grade" parts.

A reasonable compromise here is to use an electrolytic and combine it with a group of ganged "exotic" caps in order to achieve the total capacitance value desired. This helps keep costs down quite a bit as compared to using all "exotic" caps without incurring the massive sonic losses associated with using just a single large electrolytic. While many will instantly think of "bypass caps" as found in a power supply, i'm talking about a MUCH higher ratio of "exotics" to electrolytics in terms of absolute values here.

Since music is of a transient nature, the "exotic" caps in such a set-up provide the speed, clarity and focus that most electrolytics lack. Dynamics become far punchier and tighter.

On the other hand, the electrolytic provides the core foundation for the storage capacity needed. We need this in order to keep the circuit working as electrically intended, both in terms of volume and in terms of actual crossover frequency, while keeping costs down.

This approach allows the sluggish response of the electrolytic, which is now smaller in value than the original cap used, and therefore less lossy, to be helped along by the faster response times and reduced losses of the "exotics". We now have the electrolytic carrying the brunt of the load at reduced costs without having to respond quite as quickly. That's because the "exotics" take over that part of the equation. The cost of the "exotics" has been reduced too, as we are only using them for a portion of the total capacitance used.

Depending on the caps used and what one wants to spend, one can play with the ratios here. Obviously, the faster and less lossy the cap used, the better the overall performance will be. As such, the more that we can reduce the overall volume of capacitance in the electrolytic, and shift more of it onto the "exotic" caps, the better the potential sound.

With that in mind, one big problem can arise from all of this. That is, "exotic" caps tend to be quite large in size for the given volume of capacitance involved. As such, one can eat up a good amount of internal volume within the cabinet if using gobs of "exotics". This can end up detuning the bass alignment somewhat, so one may have to play with adding additional damping material in the cabinet in order to achieve similar box volumes. That is, ADDING damping material makes the box seem bigger internally, not the other way around.

One more thing. Many "exotic" caps tend to have very long legs on them. These legs tend to ring or resonate quite badly. If one doubts this, loosely hold the body of the cap and "flick" the extended lead of the cap with your finger. Chances are, you'll not only feel the cap body shake quite a bit, but a very metalic ringing will be heard quite loudly. As such, you always want to keep the leads as short as possible AND damp them as they go into the body of the cap.

Since the leads are shorter going into the cap, there will be more heat transfer as connections are made using a soldering iron, so i recommend using some type of "clip on" heatsink device between the connecting point and the body of the cap. Something as simple as an alligator clip can work quite well.

One more thing. Before replacing older caps with newer "exotic caps", gradually bring the new caps up to rated voltage with a variable voltage power supply. Let them sit for a day or two and then check their voltages. If a cap has dropped down in voltage quite a bit, it needs further forming. Apply more voltage and re-check in a few days. If it is still losing voltage at a high rate, that cap may not be worth installing as an "upgrade". You may be able to return it to the place of purchase, so you don't want to cut the lead length down until actual installation takes place.

One more thing for sake of safety. After you're all done checking the caps and letting them sit for a few days, ALWAYS discharge them before handling them. A cap can hold quite a bit of energy i.e. enough to scare the hell out of you and / or possibly stop your heart. If you're unskilled in this area, read, learn and find someone nearby with experience to help you.

Using this appoach, the electrical "break-in" period of the new caps forming is drastically reduced. Since the caps were brought up to their rated voltage, or very near it, this is FAR more voltage than they would ever see in an actual loudspeaker circuit. The fact that this voltage remained consisted for a few days and was not just a temporary dynamic swing, like that of a music signal, further stresses and helps form the cap. This reduces both loss in the dielectric and helps it to fully "form".

On top of that, the "metalic ring" that many complain about with some "exotic caps" is reduced / negated. This is due to the damping of the leads at the entrance into the body of the cap. As far as damping material goes, the use of something along the lines of "Blu-tak" or the generic equivalent seems to work well and is easily molded.

Hope this helps and opens some ears / minds. Sean
>
Vman: I have NO doubt that you experienced massive gains in your Klipsch products after upgrading parts. This was the first brand of speaker / crossover that i experimented with about 20 years ago and it involved their "classic" line of speakers.

There are further gains to be had in damping the horn bodies, sealing the cabinets, replacing existing wiring, changing the type and quantity of stuffing material, etc... Don't know where you're at with any of that, or if it even interests you, but there might be some more food for thought there : ) Sean
>
Like i said earlier, some of the crossovers i've seen were enough to make one want to either laugh, cry or at least shake their head in disbelief.

As far as sensitivity being a major portion of the revelatory importance of such upgrades and differences, i don't necessarily find that to be true. Many of the models that i've performed crossover surgery on were low to moderate efficiency designs. The results there were just as good ( if not better ) than with high efficiency designs.

Part of this may have to do with the fact that most high efficiency designs are bandwidth limited. As such, even if one were to modify and improve the crossover in such a design, the drivers themselves may not have the bandwidth to take full advantage of such mods. Minimizing signal losses and distortions are most beneficial when the drivers themselves are linear enough to reveal such changes and wide enough in bandwidth to reveal the full potential.

Besides all of that, lower efficiency designs can also benefit from the reduction in series losses from crossover upgrades. As noted above, electrolytic caps are FAR more lossy than various types of "exotic" caps. On top of that, high efficiency designs are already pretty responsive to input levels and dynamic shifts. As such, the further gains from reducing internal losses aren't as dramatic with them as compared to lower efficiency designs, where small gains become more noticeable.

Part of this could be due to the typically higher parts count in the crossovers of lower efficiency designs. Lower efficiency designs typically have more parts and more of those parts tend to be electrolytics. More parts upgraded and improved results in a greater overall percentage of improvements. Sean
>
Undertow: I think that we are thinking along the same lines, but expressing it in different ways.

While you are saying that more complex crossover designs limit the sonic potential of the system as a whole, and i tend to agree, i'm saying that these designs can be the most responsive to parts upgrades.

Think of fixing a ton of leaks in a boat verses fixing just a few leaks. Obviously, the boat ( or system ) with the least amount of "leaks" ( losses ) would be ideal, but we can't always start there ( or even end up there ). As such, turning 10 gaping holes into the equivalent of what might amount to 3 tiny leaks via the reduction of losses brought about by parts upgrades can obviously make for a very worthwhile approach to improving one's sound and system.

Granted, we still aren't perfectly sealed with some losses taking place, but the before and after results will still be quite evident and speak for themselves when all is said and done.

I say this because it is hard to achieve wide dynamic range, smooth response, high spl's and wide bandwidth simultaneously with very simple designs. As such, some folks "wanting to have it all" have gone the route of more complex speaker designs. They should not be discouraged from trying to upgrade those speakers themselves simply because they have a higher parts count and / or may be more complex to work on. Because of that higher parts count, it becomes even more important to use the best parts that one can afford in order to minimize the damage that the greater quantity of parts does.

As such, keeping it simple is a great rule of thumb. Unfortunately, you can't always keep things simple and achieve ALL of the results that one desires. Trade-off's are involved in most everything that we do, so the key is to keep things balanced and try to keep moving forward. In that respect, i think that we can all agree on one thing for a change : ) Sean
>
JD: I wasn't suggesting that you ( or anyone else ) ask my ( or anyone else's )specific advice on anything. What i was suggesting was that if someone is going to make major changes within their system and / or modify a primary component within their systems, it might be a good idea to ask for comments before doing so. Not only may it help by learning from others experiences, it may also bring about discussions on other subjects that pertain, but may not be directly related to.

This not only keeps the forums interesting due to the variety of subjects that come up, but may also give us more food for thought as to how one change can alter the performance of inter-related components. After all, i think that most of us are after better sound. While changing parts ( as you did ) may provide better sound, why not learn how to implement those changes in the most optimum manner that we as a group can arrive at? Knowing what is involved in such a project before attempting it will typically result in less effort with better results most every time.

We have a great "think tank" here with a lot of various experience at our disposal. Even if we don't always agree, why not use it to all of our advantages? This is why i encourage rebuttal to my posts and the information provided, as i too want to learn from others and better understand other vantage points.

Having said that, i do a LOT of research of my own via the Agon and AA forums. This is not to mention the vast amount of technical info available across the web. Many of the tidbits / items that i share here were culled from information that i learned from various posts / resources available to me. Granted, not every source is 100% factual and / or scientifically verifiable, hence the necessity for us to use our own brains and sort through what pertains to our individual situations and what doesn't.

Either way, i'm glad that things worked out well for you. I hope that you took this as intended i.e. a general offer to help a "regular" contributor to these forums. After all, if this hobby / industry is to continue moving forward, it will only do so by the efforts that we as a group can muster and share. Sean
>
Dbld: Most commercial designs are SOOOO far from being electrically optimized that just covering the basics i.e. better connections, better conductors, shorter signal path, etc... will almost always introduce better sonics. Parts tolerances and methods of construction vary so much from unit to unit ( in most cases ) that the small amount of error / variance that a "tweaker" may introduce becomes negligible in the grander scheme of things.

Obviously, as one gets into more precisely designed componentry, what would normally be considered a "subtle" change might manifest itself to greater degree. This is why i recommend keeping maintaining a log with diagrams PRIOR to doing any mods, so as to document what goes where and how each change alters the performance. If one wants to obtain greater precision and detail, they have to be more precise and pay attention to details. Sean
>