View Full Version : S3100 vs S3100MKII

11-22-2004, 03:11 PM
I just tried to compare S3100 and S3100MKII.

Both use the M150HS Woofer and both use the H2600 Horn.
The difference I found is that the S3100 use the 2426 and the S3100MKII use the 275ND Driver.

Does anyone have the crossover schematics of BOTH available? A comparison would be interesting!
Part No. of the S3100 schematic is 316398-001

Earl K
11-22-2004, 03:30 PM
Hi Guido,

I'm under the impression that Giskard has posted both of those schematics somewhere around here. I do know that he did up a Charge-Coupled version for the S3100 network . It's imbedded in another thread on networks that included within its' title, the N300 ( and two other networks ).

You can find the S3100 network in the Equivalent Bandpass Circuits for the 4333 / S300 / L300 (http://audioheritage.csdco.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=166&page=1&pp=15&highlight=S3100) .

- It's a real topical subject since the two networks show quite an evolution of sophistication for passive design concepts. ( IMO ) a whole bunch of interesting things are going on, within these two network designs .

- FWIW, all of the positive declarations about these 2 designs, made within this forum over the last few years, just about exclusively make reference to the earlier S3100 ( and its' simpler network that supported the 2426H driver ) .

< Earl K

11-22-2004, 04:02 PM
Thank you very much Earl!

Could you help with the MKII network?

Earl K
11-22-2004, 04:51 PM
Hi Guido,

Here's the mkII network. I'm not sure how long this can remain posted - or if it's a problem to post it.
Anyways here it is . Don't be surprised if it disappears.

A couple of items of interest . Take a look at inductors L6 and L2 . They are not "placed" in the typical inductor locations that one expects to see in a classically arranged passive network .

My interpretation: (FWIW)
L6 is the "second pole" of a two pole hipass. Normally, one would find it immediately after the First Pole ( formed by the DC biased capacitors C3 & C5 ). One of a couple of the consequences from the new placement for L6 is a significant reduction in the necessary working size ( in mh ) for this pole. The reason ?, inductance "benefits" ( in size ) when working into a lower AC impedance. The area where it is now situated would have a lower working circuit impedance than if L6 was placed in front of the Lpad . Another "benefit ?" is a decoupling of any L & C interactions ( or resonances ). This decoupling happens because the Lpad is placed bewteen the 2 poles . The net result should be a transform function that is an approximation of a single pole hipass ( or the bessel filter and all its' attributes ).

- I have yet to locate an inductor in a position like L2 , so I can't really comment on its use. Though this concept does appear in other K2 network designs . ( I also don't know if this L2 should be considered a third pole or whether it really works in tandem with L6 - the 2nd pole , Obviously, I haven't done a mockup of this concept to find out . )

regards <. Earl K

11-23-2004, 03:46 AM
Got it!

Thanks again Earl!