Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 61 to 74 of 74

Thread: Does charge coupling really work?

  1. #61
    Senior Member Ian Mackenzie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,129
    Quote Originally Posted by toddalin View Post

    I would bet that if one were to do the same test but add a by-pass cap, the addition of the 0.01 mfd would not be discernable on the meter under these conditions either. But there are certainly people who can hear this difference under ideal listening conditions.

    Is it worth the $$$? That becomes a value judgement. The difference in sound may be audible to some and not others, but it will certainly increase the costs drastically regardless. Consider that you not only need twice as many caps, but their values are twice as large and this will get into some coin.


    I would bet that there would be more benefit in taking the time to to really tweak the standard cap crossover to the listening room, and use some "creative" electronic architecture to address each drivers adequacies and faults through selective contouring, you would end up with a better result than just taking the standard crossover and making a charge-coupled version

    Speed costs money..., How fast do you want to go?
    Hi Todd,

    You make some interesting points.

    The subjective awareness is going to depend on your associated equipment and your sensitivity to subjective differences. The ability to determine subjective differences is acquired through an evolution of listening experiences as a learning.

    As a rule the more transparent the source is along with signal chain the more obvious any subjective differences will be in capacitors etc.

    For example if you have an old Sherwood receiver the impact of a capacitor upgrade won't be as identifiable as a Mark Levinson or Macintosh set up.

    A real example of a capacitor bypass improvement is to bypass a Clarity SA Capacitor with a 0.01uF Auricap. The subjective difference is painfully obvious.

    However, I am more inclined to state for the record that getting getting the signal path as pure and neutral as possible is the priority. The marriage of those factors to the innate accuracy of the loudspeaker will determine if you system is in fact transparent and can be enjoyed without listener fatigue. The two are not mutually exclusive and this is where some some experience and judgement is required. For example a very analytical capacitor (like a Teflon capacitor) and an analytical (four way) loudspeaker a driven by harsh sounding amplifier may not be your idea of an enjoyable listening experience.

    So be careful what you wish for.

    You can't EQ room problems with a capacitor recipe. That and any snake oil is a slippery slope to Hell.

    BTW if your happy with your Sherwood amp and like what you hear then there's no reason to change anything. But don't expect every audio buddy you invite over for a beer to agree with you.
    Their listening experiences are going to be uniquely different to yours and they will agree to disagree on what you like and don't like in some instances.

  2. #62
    Administrator Robh3606's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Rocinante
    Posts
    7,984
    Hello Toddalin

    Is it worth the $$$? That becomes a value judgement. The difference in sound may be audible to some and not others, but it will certainly increase the costs drastically regardless. Consider that you not only need twice as many caps, but their values are twice as large and this will get into some coin.
    That's why it's best to try on a simple 2 way system to see. When I built my CC L250 Jubilees and 1400 Be Arrays it got very costly compared to a standard network.

    Rob
    "I could be arguing in my spare time"

  3. #63
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Orange County, CA
    Posts
    3,090
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Mackenzie View Post
    Hi Todd,


    You can't EQ room problems with a capacitor recipe. That and any snake oil is a slippery slope to Hell.

    Actually, you can't not eq for room problems when that is the only space you have to develop/test in.

    Whatever problems are in the speakers and in the room will show up on the RTA and will be observable through listening in the seating position and cannot be readily differentiated. Any attempts to correct this curve though crossover development would necessarily address the room, at least to some extent.

    These speakers were designed to be used in this room and while they would probably be spectacular most anywhere, this is where they are to be used. I am not designing for other environments.

  4. #64
    Administrator Mr. Widget's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    9,983

    Boy, are we off topic!

    Quote Originally Posted by toddalin View Post
    Whatever problems are in the speakers and in the room will show up on the RTA and will be observable through listening in the seating position and cannot be readily differentiated. Any attempts to correct this curve though crossover development would necessarily address the room, at least to some extent.
    I understand where you are coming from and agree with your overall premise, that we typically intentionally or unintentionally tweak our DIY endeavors to suit our tastes and the effects of our listening rooms.

    I hi-lighted the bit above in bold type because I have experienced the opposite regarding the use of an RTA.

    As I mentioned on my Project Widget thread, when I moved from one house to another I could hear issues in the low end caused by the room that were not present in the first house. These were painfully obvious to my ears, but I could not reliably measure them with an RTA, or even MLS measurements. Ultimately I used a room analyzing tool called LARSA. With this tool I was easily able to isolate a narrow Q mode in my room that was driving me nuts. (Yes, that was what was doing it! ) I applied a notch filter tuned to the offending frequency and the room became much friendlier towards my system.


    Widget

  5. #65
    Senior Member 1audiohack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas Nevada
    Posts
    2,704
    Hello Widget;

    Good find. Did LARSA display the mode width?

    In my experience singular room modes are only two or three Hz wide.

    Barry.
    If we knew what the hell we were doing, we wouldn't call it research would we.

  6. #66
    Administrator Mr. Widget's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    9,983
    Quote Originally Posted by 1audiohack View Post
    Hello Widget;

    Good find. Did LARSA display the mode width?

    In my experience singular room modes are only two or three Hz wide.

    Barry.
    I didn't dive into the full analysis that LARSA offered. When I saw the very narrow peak at whatever frequency it was, can't remember now, I popped my Meyer Sound PEQ in the system and dialed in the sharpest Q filter I could set it to and dialed the mode mostly away. There was a much smaller one an octave up in frequency, but I left that alone as It didn't bug me. I bet there was another an octave above it, but it got buried in the signal.


    Widget

  7. #67
    Senior Member martin_wu99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Xi'An,China
    Posts
    1,487
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Widget View Post
    I understand where you are coming from and agree with your overall premise, that we typically intentionally or unintentionally tweak our DIY endeavors to suit our tastes and the effects of our listening rooms.

    I hi-lighted the bit above in bold type because I have experienced the opposite regarding the use of an RTA.

    As I mentioned on my Project Widget thread, when I moved from one house to another I could hear issues in the low end caused by the room that were not present in the first house. These were painfully obvious to my ears, but I could not reliably measure them with an RTA, or even MLS measurements. Ultimately I used a room analyzing tool called LARSA. With this tool I was easily able to isolate a narrow Q mode in my room that was driving me nuts. (Yes, that was what was doing it! ) I applied a notch filter tuned to the offending frequency and the room became much friendlier towards my system.


    Widget
    What are RTA,MLS,LARSA?where to download and how to use them?
    46 lover

  8. #68
    Administrator Mr. Widget's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    9,983
    Quote Originally Posted by martin_wu99 View Post
    What are RTA,MLS,LARSA?where to download and how to use them?
    The first two are technology types, the third is a specific iOS app.

    RTA can be a dedicated machine with a CRT or LED screen or it can be part of a computer program or phone/tablet app.

    Here is info on LARSA: https://studiosixdigital.com/audioto...aker-and-room/

    I use it with the ACO Pacific iPrecision mic. https://studiosixdigital.com/audio-h...iprecisionmic/


    Widget

  9. #69
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Orange County, CA
    Posts
    3,090
    Quote Originally Posted by martin_wu99 View Post
    What are RTA,MLS,LARSA?where to download and how to use them?
    I use a Behringer Ultracurve Pro deq2496 for the RTA. It has 61 bands so basically there is a separate band for every two notes of the musical scale.

    https://youtu.be/mYZVFjxkMq8

    https://www.manualslib.com/manual/45...o-Deq2496.html

    I only use the Behringer for Real Time Analysis (RTA) and decibel (dB) measurement and it is not in the signal path as an eq unit for "source listening." BTW, I'm sure that the Behringer with the mic in the seating position would have detected that peak in the bass range noted by Widget.

    I prefer the sound of the system when both the Oppo and Yamaha are in "direct mode" and no digital or analog processing is used. Obviously, this then necessitates optimizing the speakers to the room.

    Another thing. Look at crossover frequencies, both in the JBL line and in general.

    There are less than a half dozen in common use between the woofer an midrange regardless of what woofer and mid are used. But if you do an RTA on every speaker and driver (even in an anechoic chamber), you will find that these are not necessarily the ideal frequencies because they don't address the peaks and dips inherent in those particular drivers' parameters and a better frequency(s) is out there to mate the pair. These may even under/overlap to get the most out of what you are working with.

  10. #70
    Senior Member Rudy Kleimann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Houston, Texas
    Posts
    364

    Yeah- what Grumpy said...

    Quote Originally Posted by grumpy View Post
    "...but this voltage needs to be higher than any expected signal peak voltage."

    I challenge this repeated assumption. I suggest the bias voltage only needs to be sufficient to mitigate low level distortions, where they are likely to be audible... something like a class A/B amp
    which does not require to be biased completely into 100% class A operation in order for there to be benefit. One may certainly debate at what point further bias voltage increase brings diminishing returns for a particular speaker system. I expect there are opinions throughout the possible range of values.

    Have fun. Don't hurt yourself.
    Grumpy, you are 100% correct: charge-coupled capacitors reduce the crossover circuit distortion AND push the behavior anomalies of the capacitors to a level equating to a peak of 2 1/2 to 20 watts output level (biased at 9 volts), instead of in the miliwatt or microwatt level. These distortions become so miniscule relative to the signal level (and sound pressure level into the 100dB-plus range for cone drivers and to 110-120dB level for compression drivers) that the distortion is undetectable compared to the relatively large distortion at milliwatt output levels.


    No scam, just simple facts.

    *Your mileage may vary, depending on crossover capacitors employed, bias voltage applied, transducers used, type and condition of wiring, amplifier quality, signal spurce, and other factors...

  11. #71
    Senior Member Rudy Kleimann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Houston, Texas
    Posts
    364
    Quote Originally Posted by martin_wu99 View Post
    After so many years,there is still a debate on CC network,is there any method to measure CC network?
    Yup. Your two ears.

    God gave you the best measuring equipment known to man - and the ONLY two that really count.

    And, the brain that they are connected to...

  12. #72
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    251
    As I had lessons in otorhinolaryngology during my university studies and having been examined in this subject also, I'm well aware how the complete human hearing sense works. Believe me, human ears aren't any measuring equipment at all. Due to the lack of any memory, our ears can't be calibrated, they even fail in reproducible comparisons - and often replace it by expectation bias .

    Best regards!

  13. #73
    Administrator Mr. Widget's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    9,983
    Quote Originally Posted by Kay Pirinha View Post
    As I had lessons in otorhinolaryngology during my university studies and having been examined in this subject also, I'm well aware how the complete human hearing sense works. Believe me, human ears aren't any measuring equipment at all. Due to the lack of any memory, our ears can't be calibrated, they even fail in reproducible comparisons - and often replace it by expectation bias .
    I would argue that this is a blessing and not a curse... this is how we can listen to music through very poor reproduction systems and still enjoy the music– think transistor radio.

    Regarding expectation bias, this is true up to a point. I think it has a lot to due with the perceived "warm sound" of a lot of tube gear, the upgrades due to fancy speaker cables etc... but there are real differences too and you need to open your mind to hearing them or your expectation bias will lock you out of enjoying real benefits too.



    Widget

  14. #74
    Senior Member Rudy Kleimann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Houston, Texas
    Posts
    364
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Widget View Post
    I would argue that this is a blessing and not a curse... this is how we can listen to music through very poor reproduction systems and still enjoy the music– think transistor radio.

    Regarding expectation bias, this is true up to a point. I think it has a lot to due with the perceived "warm sound" of a lot of tube gear, the upgrades due to fancy speaker cables etc... but there are real differences too and you need to open your mind to hearing them or your expectation bias will lock you out of enjoying real benefits too.



    Widget
    Well said, Mr. Widget!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Charge coupling cap asymmetry
    By honkytonkwillie in forum Lansing Product Technical Help
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-22-2016, 04:11 PM
  2. Charge Coupling vs non CC with boutique caps
    By martin2395 in forum Lansing Product DIY Forum
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 06-10-2015, 10:56 AM
  3. Charge Coupling on the Cheap
    By Ian Mackenzie in forum Lansing Product DIY Forum
    Replies: 196
    Last Post: 10-21-2006, 09:31 AM
  4. Charge Coupling on the Cheap
    By Ian Mackenzie in forum Lansing Product General Information
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 12-15-2005, 07:02 AM
  5. Biasing, Charge coupling
    By Guido in forum Lansing Product General Information
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 04-07-2005, 10:54 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •