Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 74

Thread: Does charge coupling really work?

  1. #46
    Senior Member Odd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Posts
    635
    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

  2. #47
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    annapolis, md usa
    Posts
    438
    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/

  3. #48
    Senior Member Ian Mackenzie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,126
    Gregís 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.

  4. #49
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    annapolis, md usa
    Posts
    438
    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?

  5. #50
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Orange County, CA
    Posts
    3,068
    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium Dome View Post
    All you need is three people and two batteries: one fresh and full, and one dead. One person, out of view of the other two, switches batteries randomly and keeps a record of which battery he replaces (or leaves in place) for each trial. Another person controls the trial without knowing if the network is charged or not and insures that the sounds and music played are consistent, repetitive (each trial repeated four times at random and a record kept), and timed. The third person does the listening and "scoring" of each trial. It's boring, but verifiable and easy to replicate.
    Not quite the same.

    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.

  6. #51
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Central Coast California
    Posts
    9,019
    Quote Originally Posted by toddalin View Post
    Not quite the same.

    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.

  7. #52
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Orange County, CA
    Posts
    3,068
    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium Dome View Post
    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.

    If one were to build a "comparable" network for comparison, it's not really the same thing.

    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?

  8. #53
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Orange County, CA
    Posts
    3,068
    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.

  9. #54
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    annapolis, md usa
    Posts
    438
    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.

  10. #55
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    250
    Quote Originally Posted by toddalin View Post
    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.
    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!

  11. #56
    Senior Member Ian Mackenzie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,126
    This thread is turning into a Seniors Moment.Lol.

  12. #57
    Administrator Mr. Widget's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    9,982
    Quote Originally Posted by Kay Pirinha View Post
    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!
    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 youíre looking for subtle changes.


    Widget

  13. #58
    Senior Member 1audiohack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas Nevada
    Posts
    2,701
    Quote Originally Posted by toddalin View Post
    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...
    Thatís the wrong tool set, and I think you know it. Itís 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 donít 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.

  14. #59
    Senior Member Ian Mackenzie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,126
    The
    Quote Originally Posted by Kay Pirinha View Post
    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!
    I 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.

  15. #60
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Orange County, CA
    Posts
    3,068
    Quote Originally Posted by Kay Pirinha View Post
    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!
    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?

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
  •