As the video shows, you don't waste much time building Charge Coupled Crossovers.
And they work.
As the video shows, you don't waste much time building Charge Coupled Crossovers.
And they work.
43XX (2235-2123-2450-2405-CC 3155)5235-4412-4406-4401-L250-18Ti-L40-S109 Aquarius lV-C38 (030) 305P MkII
This article from 2017 shows GT converted his Everest from passive charge coupled to fully active analogue, then active digital. Don't know if this is still how's he's implementing his system however.
Quote: ..."I have been playing around with electronic crossovers at home for many years. There is a detail and clarity to electronic systems that passive has trouble matching. However, there is often a musicality to the passive stuff that is difficult to achieve with a purely electronic chain. I was stuck with the compromise between a very nice analog active crossover system vs. digital stuff. The analog sounds very nice, and in my case better than any digital solution I had tried. The digital has the ability to do room EQ for free and fix a lot of problems. I could get great response and tonal balance, but I was always lacking in the musicality and "out of the box" presentation.
I had read about the DEQX and decided to try them. My system is very complicated being a fully active 4-way system so implementing the DEQX solution took a while. I was intrigued by the ability of the DEQX to eliminate group delay at the crossover points. This is something that can't be done in analog and although people claim to have time aligned systems; they still have group delay in the crossover range. Even first order crossovers can't solve this problem since the individual drivers do not have the bandwidth above and below the crossover points to not contribute to the "acoustic slopes".
By using FIR filters, amplitude and phase can be manipulated independently so this constraint can be overcome. The hardware in the DEQX is very well implemented indeed, but it is no match for the esoteric discrete analog stuff. Still, the complete amplitude and time correction easily overcomes this handicap and has given me the best of both worlds. I now have all of the detail, dynamics, smoothness and spacial attributes I have been searching for with the ability to do room correction and frequency shaping as I wish. It is a win-win for me.".....
http://positive-feedback.com/intervi...g-timbers-jbl/
Greg’s system has evolved over time and is highly complex. There is a lot of skill and experience is setting up a system of this caliber. It sounds incredible. I think Greg now uses a bunch of outboard from EMM Labs now. The DEQX is s nice approach but use chip based op amps. The EMM Labs dacs have discrete class A circuits.
Glad to hear that. I'm working toward a similar arrangement with a DEQX and outboard dacs in the (hopefully) not too distant future. Perhaps he'd be willing to update us about the journey?
Not quite the same.Originally Posted by Titanium Dome
Nobody builds a regular crossover by building a charge coupled crossover and leaving out the battery, and without comparing a "dead" charge coupled crossover to a regular crossover of the comparable configuration, we don't know if these "extra pieces" would have any sonic impact of themselves.
Well, it's the other way around, isn't it? AFAIK, no one builds a charge-coupled network that doesn't also work as a non charge-coupled network for obvious reasons. Otherwise Widget's Everests and my K2s would have stopped working the moment the batteries gave up. The comparison above is the same speaker with the same components with or without charge-coupling, since there is no charge with the dead battery.
Few of us are likely to build a purely analog network to see if the designer of these speakers was selling a pointless tweak (or maybe had stock in Everyday or Duracell), although I don't doubt a few members here feel it would be a challenge they could win.
If one were to build a "comparable" network for comparison, it's not really the same thing.
Out.
It's not that it "doesn't work," but maybe it doesn't work exactly the same as a non-charge coupled version without the extra caps and dead/missing battery..., and isn't that what we are trying to compare here?
I made up a charge coupled first order (two 10 mfd Spragues, 2.2 meg resistor, 9 volt battery) and connected it to a Heil.
The RTA shows no discernable difference in the spectrum of pink noise with the battery connected or not. Furthermore, there is no readily audible difference in the pink noise though the Heil.
This was just one Heil on one channel and I did not listen to music as I didn't have enough caps to do both sides.
I seem to remember reading that once charged, the capacitors in a CC network take a significant amount of time to return to their original state after the battery is removed. Perhaps on the order of hours/days? If I'm recalling that correctly (), it would require 2 separate sets of identical networks to do a valid a/b/x test. One set charged, the other not.
That's exactly what I was suspecting. No measurable difference means if someone believes to hear some difference it can be deduced to expectation bias.
Best regards!
This thread is turning into a Seniors Moment.Lol.
While in principle I agree with your logic, you fail to take into account that no sophisticated measurements were taken. What effects did the network have on impulse response, phase response, distortion, etc., etc., not to mention the frequency response offered was only a 1/3 or perhaps a 1/6 octave RTA measurement. Useful for basic indications, but not particularly resolving if you’re looking for subtle changes.
Widget
That’s the wrong tool set, and I think you know it. It’s no surprise you got the answer you expected.
What you are looking for would require a test rig approaching an Audio Precision level measurement platform.
If you don’t hear it, skip it. Easy as that.
Barry.
If we knew what the hell we were doing, we wouldn't call it research would we.
TheI think you making an assumption merely based on a few posts in this thread where like opinion polling only those with a negative opinion post.
There are hundreds of diy change coupled networks out in the field and in 18 years l have not heard a negative response. This applies to networks built and tested to a specification.
You might wish to do some searching of prior threads featuring diy charge coupled networks.
So you’d post might appear to Toll on what is an otherwise non issue.
No, the test is inconclusive in so many ways. The results may be so small as to be hearable, but not readily discernable on the meter that is in continual fluxuation of "whole numbers." Furthermore, the meter is looking at the frequency response and not the multitude of other things that can impact the sound. And, as I noted, it was only one channel and I didn't listen to music.
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?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote