- Posted by JBen (A) on August 16, 2010 at 07:23:53
In Reply to: RE: Chokes, again. Primarily for those who bi-amp and use them posted by johnvb on August 16, 2010 at 05:24:26
Johnvb, yes, in a way. Until this weekend, the way I mentioned earlier is what I was using for every bi-amp configuration I can switch to at home. I may have to change that to: it depends on which.Too many variables are at play for an across-the-board recipe. The easy way is, try! It ain't expensive at all, and well worth the effort.
Why now? I am writing a report on my experiences with the Razoring tweaks. It seemed fit to revisit the behavior of the other tweaks I've made, relative to the "new" sound. Do they behave the same? The chokes were high in my mind.
My old notes on the choke experiments early on, had a curious set of entries. You see, at first, I could only get four 5502 in March, 2009. When Mouser finally brought in 5522s, there were only a few 5522 in stock. People here were starting to awaken to the chokes. In consideration, I only ordered 2 5522, so that others would be able to get them. Anyway, I had the 5502 working fine already. Later, I discovered that the 5502 in pairs worked great for the tweeters, as long as the 5522 are in the bass panels. For bi-amping, that's how I kept things until now.
Then I found the notes, not long ago. These confirmed that -- from the beginning -- sound (imaging, really) was not as good if chokes were used just for either the low panels or the tweeters alone. In bi-amp, all drivers had to have their respective choke. That never fails to be the case here. During the Razoring tests, I had to discard a whole hour of listening because I forgot to reconfigure the chokes for a normal xover. Later, I forgot to do it for the return to bi-amping. The odd sound drove me nuts for a while until I remembered that the tweeter chokes were off.
But there was a short entry in the notes that I had forgotten. It seems that I liked the imaging somewhat better when all the chokes were 5502s (of which I had 4) than when I mixed with the 5522 (of which I only had 2). No major surprise or a biggie, by itself. However, I also noted that in one bi-amp configuration, not just the imaging but a "something else" seemed to improve.
THAT bi-amp configuration happens to be my closest one to the current MMG factory xover design. Which is why I chose to used it for some of the Razoring tests. So, I rechecked this (put all 5502, and no 5522). Sure enough. Something gained a little, slight body warmth...nice, not earthshaking.
Based on this, I finally ordered the extra pair of 5522. They got here on Friday. Clearly, the same thing happens when all 4 are 5522. Yet, this time the impact is more pronounced. The midrange gains in body and warmth. The bass also changes -- quality improves perceptibly. I mean it as a "perception" because I don't know if I can measure it properly. I don't even know that everyone would like it...
I have yet to try this with the other bi-amp configs. The notes do not indicate if the same happened but I may have not tried it. Regardless of what happens, I figured it may be of use to the few cats like us that do this kind of thing. Like I said, it is cheap to test.
Edits: 08/16/10Follow Ups:
- RE: Chokes, again. Primarily for those who bi-amp and use them - johnvb 09:59:43 08/16/10
(11)
- In Reply to: RE: Chokes, again. Primarily for those who bi-amp and use them posted by JBen on August 16, 2010 at 07:23:53
I added the 5502 chokes to the tweeters of my quasi gunned MMGs a couple of weeks ago. Using the series crossover.
To be honest, I did not hear any immediate improvements from the chokes per say, but I'm still in the process of breaking in my panels and crossovers, still playing with room positioning, front end equipment, silver vs copper cabling, etc,etc. So the system is going though constant changes right now.
Didn't hear any negative results from the chokes either, so I will leave them in there, to do their thing.
The difference between the 5502 and 5522 is the wattage rating. I wonder if there is a possibility that the smaller wattage 5502 will reduce or some how effect the power available to the driver it is connected to? What you stated almost sounds like this is the case.
Edits: 08/16/10
- RE: Chokes, again. Primarily for those who bi-amp and use them - JBen 11:57:18 08/16/10
(0)
- In Reply to: RE: Chokes, again. Primarily for those who bi-amp and use them posted by johnvb on August 16, 2010 at 09:59:43
A couple of observations.
1. I think to remember that PG reported no change when testing them, which I believe was, indeed, a series crossover. I may still have a chance to emulate the series xover with the speaker-level parts that I have. If so, it may take a couple of weeks (for me to have a "fair" testing environment). I'll let you know if I find something.
However, it would not surprise me that the difference is reduced in a series xover. Part of of the reason may be implied in Neolith's posting earlier, the first sentence. Furthermore, the reason I jumped for the chokes initially, seems to support Neo's logic.
At the time that I read about the chokes for the first time, I was still using Tazmon's "capless" tweeter tweak for my bi-amped MMGs. The "capless" tweak uses an inductor and resistors instead of capacitors. The downside, a tremendous waste of energy. The upside was, in my case, not just the best tweeter output I had had to that point. In ADDITION, there where notable gains elsewhere, primarily imaging.
I wanted to switch to a line-level xover but feared loosing the imaging attributes brought on by the "capless" tweak. Upon reading what Al's choke did, I saw lights in the heavens! In thanking Dawnrazor for his help with the very successful capless tweak, I wrote this in early March 2009:
"By what may turn out to be a happy coincidence, a few nights ago I encountered -- for the first time -- Al Sekela's choke tweak for the 3.6R Maggies. I now know that it has been around for a while. The thing that caught my attention was that the description of its effects by others, resembles my own experience with my adaptation of the capless for my MMGs...which kept the inductor, which is a choke... (So, I just received chokes of the type Al suggested and I may be even able to get some initial impressions this week.) "
Here was a great chance that this choke thing could do the same thing that the inductor in "capless" was doing with regard to imaging. IT DID!!!
Now, the series xover incorporates the inductor in a manner that may already provide part of the benefit. The only doubt I have about this is that, with the chokes on stock xovers, I've observed some of the benefit anyways. In these cases, a 5522 choke is at the input -- so, the low pass inductor see's it. I'll try to test as soon as I can.
2. I do suspect that, had I tried the chokes early on before my MMGs had improved to a certain level, I would have missed the improvements. Nowadays, after all that I have done, the difference is quite evident. So, wait for the break-in to run its course. Do the other tweaks. Maximizing positioning is key. Get used to how they sound. Then compare again.
- Choke differences. - Al Sekela 10:44:52 08/16/10
(9)
- In Reply to: RE: Chokes, again. Primarily for those who bi-amp and use them posted by johnvb on August 16, 2010 at 09:59:43
RF chokes are rated by how much DC current they can carry without overheating and still deliver the rated inductance at some RF test frequency. In the cases of the 5502 and 5522, there will be differences in the wire gauge and possibly in the ferrite slug. My guess is the sonic differences are due primarily to the differences in wire gauge.
These chokes are cheap enough to permit experimentation. Someone could take some apart and rewind them with their favorite audiophile wire. Keeping the same number of turns would preserve the inductance. My setup would not allow this without massive surgery, and I have other experiments to do.
- RE: Choke differences. - sailor321 11:29:51 08/16/10
(8)
- In Reply to: RE: Choke differences. posted by Al Sekela on August 16, 2010 at 10:44:52
When I first read about this the suggestion was for the ribbon tweeter only.
Are you now recommending this treatment for each driver, whether 2 way or three way.
So it goes.........
- FWIW - Dawnrazor 21:02:52 08/17/10
(4)
- In Reply to: RE: Choke differences. posted by sailor321 on August 16, 2010 at 11:29:51
I have the 5502 on each driver on my mmgs. And I am using the capless crossover.
I noticed a big difference on the tweeter and a smaller difference when I did the bass driver. But a difference. There are alpha core inductors in both those low and high pass crossovers, and I still heard a difference.
I am through with passive crossovers but will keep the chokes and rc networks when I finally go active.
My 2 cents is that they are so cheap, just add them to the other drivers. If you dont dig them, then I bet you could easily sell them to another inmate.
No one here remembers the bending of our minds
- RE: FWIW - plus calling Davey - JBen 23:38:18 08/17/10
(3)
- In Reply to: RE: FWIW posted by Dawnrazor on August 17, 2010 at 21:02:52
That's why I ilked the chokes when I first read about them and tried shortly after. They did a lot of what the capless inductor was helping with (in terms of imaging).
Which reminds me, D, I keep wanting to bring back that inductor into the equation again for testing. During the early days, when I tried the chokes along with the inductor, I had some interesting imaging presentation. I did not tweak for it, as I was already going to line-level filtering. So, the inductor left the scene. Yet....
oh Daveyyyy...here is one I've been meaning to ask you about for a while:
a. Right now, the tweeter already gets the signal already filtered, in 1st order, directly from the amp
b. In the past, the "capless" tweak, required a resistor in series and the inductor in parallel to the tweeter, for a 1st order filter. The resistor burned tons of energy but it was required in series with the tweeter.
c. What happens if I keep the line-level (1st order) but in addition add the inductor + resistor BOTH in parallel with the tweeter.
In effect, I would get a 2nd order filter of some weird kind, I guess. More to the point of my question, would it be safe to move the resistor to that parallel position, in series with the inductor? At this spot, I suspect, it would still prevent a short without causing much of a drop.
This twisted mind of mine thinks that, perhaps, the combo could serve a good purpose. I don't know the proper values yet, but as long as it is relatively safe, I'd like to try it with the parts that I already have.
For inductor, I can use the .39mH/.20 DCR that I used for capless.
A resistor value of 8 ohm would - I think - make this kick in at just under 3300hz, slighty below were the first filter would already have done the job. (Oh, yes, for the first 1st order filter at line level, assume a similar slope of a 2nd or current design MMG.) So, much less energy is left.
The theoretical desirability of doing this kind of thing is probably well south of the sanity mark. I just need to know that I am not burning an amp by trying.
Yes, I know...I'll take my pills later, promise.
- RE: FWIW - plus calling Davey - Davey 07:13:50 08/18/10
(2)
- In Reply to: RE: FWIW - plus calling Davey posted by JBen on August 17, 2010 at 23:38:18
Well, if I understand your question correctly, adding an inductor + resistor (wired in series) in parallel with the tweeter probably won't have much effect. The impedance seen by the amplifier will be modified such that the amplifier will see a lower than driver impedance at low frequencies, but at higher frequencies it would be like the circuit wasn't even there.
You're amplifier is functioning as a voltage source, ie, it's going to supply a voltage shaped by the line-level filter ahead of the amplifier. Anything wired just in shunt...without a companion series element...is not going to have a desired (or consistent) effect in the audio region. This is why the "capless" high-pass filter requires both elements (resistor and inductor) to work properly.
Cheers,
Dave.
- RE: FWIW - plus calling Davey - JBen 08:15:14 08/18/10
(1)
- In Reply to: RE: FWIW - plus calling Davey posted by Davey on August 18, 2010 at 07:13:50
Tks! That's along the lines of what I could only speculate about.
So, the minimum impedance that the amp would see is about 2.7ohms, depending on the frequency?
- RE: FWIW - plus calling Davey - Davey 21:11:40 08/18/10
(0)
- In Reply to: RE: FWIW - plus calling Davey posted by JBen on August 18, 2010 at 08:15:14
Yep, somewhere in that neighborhood.
Also, your amplifier may have some sort of RC network internal on the speaker outputs anyway. Many do. These are included for stability purposes on many amplifiers so they don't see high resistance loads outside (higher) the audio frequency range.
Cheers,
Dave.
- RE: FWIW - plus calling Davey - Davey 21:11:40 08/18/10
(0)
- RE: FWIW - plus calling Davey - JBen 08:15:14 08/18/10
(1)
- RE: FWIW - plus calling Davey - Davey 07:13:50 08/18/10
(2)
- RE: FWIW - plus calling Davey - JBen 23:38:18 08/17/10
(3)
- Theoretically, - Al Sekela 14:58:17 08/17/10
(1)
- In Reply to: RE: Choke differences. posted by sailor321 on August 16, 2010 at 11:29:51
the chokes should help in any configuration where there is a direct HF path from a speaker driver element to the amplifier. I have not used them in series with my MG-20 tweaked crossover sections for midrange and bass panel because there are already inductors in series with the drivers. The chokes would only help if these inductors had such poor self-resonance that they would permit RF noise picked up from the drivers to flow freely into the amp. I can't rule this out because I've not done the experiment.
In setups with active crossovers, the amps are connected directly to the driver elements and should benefit from use of the chokes no matter what driver is involved.
Maggie drivers are good antennas and can allow RF noise in the local environment to get into the amplifiers.
- RE: Theoretically, - pictureguy 22:00:33 08/18/10
(0)
- In Reply to: RE: Theoretically, posted by Al Sekela on August 17, 2010 at 14:58:17
And I live <1 mile from radio transmitter antennas.....big un's.
Too much is never enough
- RE: Theoretically, - pictureguy 22:00:33 08/18/10
(0)
- RE: Choke differences. - JBen 20:26:00 08/16/10
(0)
- In Reply to: RE: Choke differences. posted by sailor321 on August 16, 2010 at 11:29:51
Sorry, I missed this earlier. Yes, early last year I found out about the chokes because I "ventured" into a 3.6s discussion.
Upon reading about the sound improvements that the chokes caused in the upper Maggies, I had a haunch.
I was already getting something akin to these improvements, but in my MMGs. Not "ribbon" sound, mind you. But at least far better than I had before the "capless" tweeter mod that gave me these improvements. Given some drawbacks of going "capless", I wanted to move on to a line-level xover.
One little problem with that...early tests suggested that in simply going to line-level, I could lose a valued contribution of "capless".
This contribution was better imaging and 3D soundstaging. When I read that the chokes were doing this for some of the upper Maggies, I JUST HAD TO TRY!
I got the chokes and I also went to the line-level xover. It worked, grandly.
Around that time, other users picked up on the discussion of the chokes and tried it in their non-ribbon Maggies. Many reported solid results. Others could not hear much of a difference. All I can say is that, here, they have become key to enhancing the 3D imaging sound of my system.
Al Sekela is the originator of the chokes idea. If you search around for his inputs, you will find valuable details.
[Edit: I forgot to add that imaging attributes are not the only contribution of the chokes to my system. I consider them partly responsible for the cleaner-sounding upper registers in my tweeters. I had never expected the upper end to get this good because, indeed, that is "ribbon" territory. On SACDs, friends can't believe the extension and cleanliness that these cheap old MMGs can deliver. That does not happen if the chokes are off. It will only get better the day I can afford 3.6s]
Edits: 08/16/10
- FWIW - Dawnrazor 21:02:52 08/17/10
(4)
- RE: Choke differences. - sailor321 11:29:51 08/16/10
(8)
- RE: Chokes, again. Primarily for those who bi-amp and use them - JBen 11:57:18 08/16/10
(0)
Post a Followup:
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
-
To view your new posting or follow-up, click on the RELOAD or REFRESH button on your browser.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
[
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]