This seems perfectly plausible. If you're correct, it's likely that there are other subtle mechanisms that are also involved here.
16 responses Add your response
If you are truly interested in the details of the Focal, read here:
This is not my only data point however. I’ve also seen beginner DIY’ers alter the bass crossover by changing the second pole cap, which changed the ESR but only slightly, and found it sounded significantly different. Increasing the series resistor by maybe 0.5 Ohms fixed the issue.
This is not proof, but it's interesting. Like the doctor who first noticed smokers and lung cancer seemed related.
@Erik Interesting, thanks for sharing.
I’ll have to check my cables characteristics! Empirically, I find that slightly capacitive ICs seem to perform slightly better — by which I mean a better sense of clarity & air, i.e. clearer stronger upper mids (& frequencies over 13kHz).
Unless of course, in the case of amps, it comes down to slew arte?
I did a complete analysis of the speaker in XSim. Gathered acoustical and impedance plots. The only thing that circuit did was lower the impedance.
You can remove one cap and resistor section with nearly zero effect to the voltage transfer function. With a "normal" low pass filter, you can raise the impedance, with the identical transfer function, and eliminate the resistors.
I’m confident in my conclusion: The crossover was deliberately designed to have a low impedance point.
Yeah, I put that in a different category. Several high end manufacturers have some sort of level setting which DOES show up in simulations as altering the output. I think those circuits are legit, whether dials or resistor changes.
What I'm talking about are how simulations miss how changes to the impedance curve alters the sound, even when the simulation says it does not.
This is kind of like how we assume tube amps are more sensitive than SS amps to hard to drive speakers.
We think, oh, it's a SS drive, what can 1 ohm change in impedance to? Actually, a lot.
You are referring to using a lower driver impedance. When you do that you gain sensitivity at the cost of efficiency. The lower driver impedance causes more current to flow through the coil and act against the magnet.
That is unfortunately not what I was talking about in this particular crossover. This is an impedance miss-correction circuit which lowered impedance without gaining efficiency or sensitivity. There is no increase current flow in the driver. Only via the resistors. So it is wasted heat.
Often, impedance correction circuits are used to flatten out the impedance making them a more consistent load for tube amps. Keeping the impedance between 6 and 8 ohms for instance. That can really help tubes perform.
As I mentioned, I thoroughly analyzed the drivers individually for impedance and amplitude. I produced an alternative crossover which raised the impedance curve significantly without altering the frequency response, and improving efficiency.
You would need to include some model of the amplifier in your simulation to possibly see this.
Also, don't know on your specific example, there may be some rational to there design choice. Some issues that were displayed during bench testing. Possibly reducing variation over component tolerances, have you tried running a Monte Carlo analysis utilizing the component tolerances?