SpeakerTalk

Nimo_jon

Hello

Are the 600uF capacitors in the Carlton III solely for DC blocking protection?

It appears to be a form of sonic tuning that makes the bass more mellow.

My Carlton III are fast approaching thirty over years of age.
Any suggestion on how to replace/renew the cross over network?

Cheers Very Happy

ColinR · Posted: Thu Mar 17, 2011 10:36 am Post subject:

Nimo_jon · Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 5:21 am Post subject:

Smart move! Thanks for the reply Colin!

Base on this fact, can I improve the quality of the bass in speakers like KEF 104, 104aB using a 600uF after the T filter, before the B200 driver?

Cheers!

ColinR · Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 12:05 pm Post subject:

Nimo_jon · Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 2:04 pm Post subject:

Evaluations are always available FOC. Wink

http://zone.ni.com/devzone/cda/tut/p/id/5413

Anyone has the complete equivalent model of the B200? I can run some sim results when time allows. Good to compare with Dayton Audio OmniMic measurement. Then again, if time allows. Rolling Eyes

Nimo_jon · Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 3:38 pm Post subject:

Alright, my years in Leicester U wasn't wasted.
The old Microsim PSPICE still works in my PC backup folder.

Here is the model of the B200 subjected to a 0-1khz freq sweep. I am comparing the Carlton III bass sections with the 600uf, without the 600uf and a 300uf.

The part that marks V is the end of the cross over, feeling the driver's equivalent circuit.

B200 electrical data may not be spot on, but for simulation and comparison the values are just approximations from the equations.
Res = Re × Qms / Qes
Ces = Qes /( 2 × p × fs × Re )
Les = Re /( 2 × p × fs × Qes)

This is the simulation result.
red trace is the frequency response without any cap.
green is frequency response with 600uF
yellow trace is frequency response with 300uF.

There are more bass boost from below 200Hz for both caps.
Now the purpose of the caps are clear.
Not really meant for DC blocking.

ColinR · Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 3:47 pm Post subject:

So are you going to do a "quick and dirty" audio test by putting a fat capacitor across a SP1039 in a KEF 104 held in place by a couple of crocodile clip endowed fly leads and let us know how it sounds?
_________________
This post or any other information supplied to this website or any other by myself is not available for any form of commercial purpose i.e. to hi-fi magazines or as sales and marketing material for sleezeBay or Audiodogging pimps and the like.

Nimo_jon · Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 3:50 pm Post subject:

I Certainly am.... Very Happy

Nimo_jon · Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 4:19 pm Post subject:

Ok, running simulation is always easier than putting on crocodile clips/fly leads.

Here is the 104aB bass section without a 600uf, with a 600uf before the cross over, and with a 600uf right before the driver unit.

There are bass boost below 300Hz. Putting the cap before the cross over or after has no performance difference.

I suppose putting a big cap outside the speaker box is easier........ or this will be the Nth time I open up the KEF 104 Wink

speakerguru · Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 10:36 pm Post subject:

Nimo_jon · Posted: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:06 pm Post subject:

On the excitation part, I only consider the Rxo Lxo equivalent for the crossover, totally disregarding the impedance presented by the amplifier, speaker cables as well.

The driver impedance RE, LE, RLC (ES) values were derived from KEF's data sheet. I am not too concerned as this simulation was to find out the effect of the 600uf to the driver excitation. The values I used were close approximations.

I do not know how to derive the L ceb, R el, C mep for the 104 box. Certainly with all parameters fully described then can we get an accurate simulation.

However I am not a speaker designer, and I am not a fan of simulation. This is a 15 year old version student version spice to murk around. I ran some transient responses and it indicated some advantage placing the cap before the crossover. Precise simulated data are good to know but not really essential for the typical end user. Anyway, simulation is a good tool, knowing what's happening before opening up the speaker box.

I have tried out the 600uf before the 104aB low pass section. Not bad. I may switch to a 300/300uf pair NP type and try out later.

Cheers. Wink

speakerguru · Posted: Sun Mar 20, 2011 12:19 pm Post subject:

Nimo_jon · Posted: Sun Mar 20, 2011 3:14 pm Post subject:

Too right that deriving the correct model's a real pain.

When working on vintage speakers like the 104, there are always a few things I observe. That is, not to alter the KEF's design too much. (A novice's assumption can never be better than some experienced designers' proven work). The modification or improvement is reversible. Understand the limitations in the 70s and why certain things were done.

The 104 cabinet is not very sturdy. I know KEF had a habit of stuffing lots of sponge into the cabinet for speakers during that time. This was an effective way to make the cabinet behave much better acoustically. Right? There were times I was tempted to spray bitumen into the interior of the cabinet to strengthen it. But I did not do that because if that did not work well as an overall effect, I would be screwed big time. I tried different sponges, but in the end still not much deviation from the original arrangements. Less sponge made the speaker more lively but thinner, and more sponge made it more polite but full bodied.

Which comes to question, did KEF assert subjective assessment as part of the design/manufacturing stages? Unlike machines, we can accurately measure a certain performance parameter before it leaves the factory. But two speakers showing similar frequency response charts can sound entirely different. Who formed the panel of such subjective assessment, if there were indeed such a department in KEF? Confused

I have a few pairs of Carlton III in various conditions. I only have one pair of KEF 104 and one pair of 104aB, and parts enough to remake two more pairs of 104. Switching between these speakers, with a good source and a decent amplifier, I hear better bass coming from the Carlton III (its cabinet is more solid). The cabinet and cross over plays a big part of course. I am, however, not impressed with the T33s for years.

For HF, I prefer speakers with the T27 tweeters. Although some commented T27 is perky in nature and too spiky at times, it could be revealing issues in other parts of the audio chain. For example, a poor digital source or an amplifier with slew rate limitation or even a problem with the wiring in the cabinet. And personally I prefer the T27 anytime over the T33A.

What I am working now is to attempt to enable the performance of T27 on a pair of Carlton, using Seas' 22AF/G tweeter (this tweeter has an uncanny similarities with the T27 in electrical terms, and rival the sonic performance of the Hiquphon). This is another story.

I am very happy with the mid and bass of the Carlton III although it is not very deep and powerful. The T33A sound dim (even a pair of fairly new T33A constructor replacement did not help). I believe the ferro fluid has become viscous over the years, and need to be replaced. I heard that Ferro fluidic here in the Americas sell them in small packets, but this is too much trouble.

While on the 104, I would like to hear it sound more full bodied like the Carton III. So that is why I asked about the feasibility of implementing the 600uF and I am trying that out. Simple simulation only suggests what happens electrically within the crossover/driver interface.

I look at the Carlton III a continuation of the success story of the 104. (my 104s had been upgraded to newer SP1039 of late 70s. They appear to have the same cone surface finishing as those on the Cartlton III B200).

Do you think it is possible to make all of them sound similar in the end? Wink

I don't know , but I am trying things out now.

Nimo_jon · Posted: Mon May 02, 2011 3:13 pm Post subject:

Hi Guys

I have tried out the 600uf in the KEF104 as well as the KEF104aB.

I suppose the SP1039 with its large magnet has sufficient bass response for most listening. The 600uf did not appear to give much advantage as in the case of the Carlton III. The 8 ohms, short coil large gap construction with a suitably damped suspension has a totally different system characteristics to that of the B200G.

The B200G SP1075 on the Carlton III has a much smaller magnet than the SP1039. It is much lighter. The suspension compliance feels totally different from that of the SP1039.

I would leave the KEF 104s as is. I have embarked on the rebuild of my KEF Calrton III, mainly due to its age and dulled tweeters.

darkmatter · Posted: Sun Feb 28, 2016 8:14 pm Post subject:

I note that the Elektor PL301 uses a large value of series capacitance to the bass input section. IIRC

600 uF

450 uF in the CS9 kit

Wonder how much improvement could be made by fitting better quality caps noting that the size would be an important factor unless the crossovers are mounted outside of the main enclosure.