Monitor statement Near wall crossover confusion ??

[randyc1]

1- I'm comparing my crossover plans with others here who posted pics of their Monitor Statement crossovers (close wall), and some seem to be a little different, either a bigger or more caps,.. or an additional resistance ??

2- Are the plans posted here for the close wall crossover the same as everyone else ??

3- Why is my 50uf cap soo much smaller than the plan.

4- And (last pic) ,...why was i sent a corrected version of the Mid section of the (Statement CC),..was something changed at one point ???

[cjd]

The cap you got is an NPE, where the plan probably shows a poly (more expensive) cap.

[Jim Holtz]

Chris is correct of course. The cap you have is an electrolytic rather than a poly as speced. It'll work but I wouldn't use it. I'm not sure where you got the crossover layouts but there have been no changes. The correct one is linked from here and is also available on Curt's website. I'm attaching it.

Jim

[randyc1]

Chris is correct of course. The cap you have is an electrolytic rather than a poly as speced. It'll work but I wouldn't use it. I'm not sure where you got the crossover layouts but there have been no changes. The correct one is linked from here and is also available on Curt's website. I'm attaching it.


Jim

The first two pics i posted are for the Monitor Statments (near wall)
The last picture only is for the CC , comparing a correction made .

These plans are directly from Meniscus Audio ????

[BeerParty]

You will want to use the bottom image from the Meniscus Audio page.

Curt's web site contains images for all the crossovers.
This is the mid-range network for the Statement center channel from his site:



and here is the Meniscus Audio page marked with the labels used in the schematic from Curt's site:



BTW - I would NOT wire it up just like that picture, I would add extra wire and have specific labelled connections for the source and the driver. The mids in the Statements are wired out of phase: the (+) on the driver is connected to the (-) of the source. It was easier for me to add extra wires and label everything on my boards so I didn't have to try and remember that when I connected the driver.

[randyc1]

Chris is correct of course. The cap you have is an electrolytic rather than a poly as speced. It'll work but I wouldn't use it. I'm not sure where you got the crossover layouts but there have been no changes. The correct one is linked from here and is also available on Curt's website. I'm attaching it.

Jim

Thanks Jim,..it's all good now,...called Meniscus and they will be sending the correct Caps !!

[randyc1]

You will want to use the bottom image from the Meniscus Audio page.

Curt's web site contains images for all the crossovers.
This is the mid-range network for the Statement center channel from his site:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]21853[/ATTACH]

and here is the Meniscus Audio page marked with the labels used in the schematic from Curt's site:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]21854[/ATTACH]

BTW - I would NOT wire it up just like that picture, I would add extra wire and have specific labelled connections for the source and the driver. The mids in the Statements are wired out of phase: the (+) on the driver is connected to the (-) of the source. It was easier for me to add extra wires and label everything on my boards so I didn't have to try and remember that when I connected the driver.

Thanks Beerparty !

Ok, so Monitors it's just the (Mid) that is out of phase ,..and the CC it's (Mid and tweeter) ? correct??


And for the CC ,... i noticed someonene's (CC crossover pics) , there were 2 BIG Caps, ..only one on my plan ??

[Jim Holtz]

There is a 68 uF cap in both the woofer and mid circuits. Take a look at the crossover I posted for the center. It has all three circuits laid out for you and also shows polarity of the drivers.

Jim

[randyc1]

Yes , i should have been more clear ,...Only one BIG Cap out of the 2, I've seen pics with 2BIG Caps in the CC crossover ?

What is the difference between the 2 different sizes ?

There is a 68 uF cap in both the woofer and mid circuits. Take a look at the crossover I posted for the center. It has all three circuits laid out for you and also shows polarity of the drivers.

Jim

[Jim Holtz]

Yes , i should have been more clear ,...Only one BIG Cap out of the 2, I've seen pics with 2BIG Caps in the CC crossover ?

What is the difference between the 2 different sizes ?

Someone else will have to give you the technical explanation but the poly caps are of higher quality and are used in high quality audio circuits. I didn't understand that you had one poly and one electrolytic. The electrolytic can be used successfully in the woofer circuit which is why Meniscus included it. They are less expensive. Many believe their performance is fine in that application.

Jim

[randyc1]

Someone else will have to give you the technical explanation but the poly caps are of higher quality and are used in high quality audio circuits. I didn't understand that you had one poly and one electrolytic. The electrolytic can be used successfully in the woofer circuit which is why Meniscus included it. They are less expensive. Many believe their performance is fine in that application.

Jim

OK so just to be clear about the (Big) Poly Cap ,.. there is only 1 (Big) Poly Cap in the Monitors ,..and 1 (Big) Poly Cap in the CC, ,...along with the other smaller caps , correct ?

[Jim Holtz]

OK so just to be clear about the (Big) Poly Cap ,.. there is only 1 (Big) Poly Cap in the Monitors ,..and 1 (Big) Poly Cap in the CC, ,...along with the other smaller caps , correct ?

You need to look closely at the crossover I posted. There are two 68 uF caps for each speaker crossover. One is in the Net 1 woofer circuit at the C1021 position and the second is in the Net two circuit at the C2021 position. If you've not had any experience reading schematics and are familiar with the crossover symbols, I'd suggest you get someone to help solder them for you or have Meniscus assemble the crossover for you. The crossover has to be right or the speaker will not sound as designed.

The 68uF electrolytic cap Meniscus sent will work fine in the C1021 position. I prefer to use poly caps everywhere but there isn't anything wrong with using an electrolytic in a woofer circuit. Do not use it in the mid crossover, however.

Jim

[randyc1]

You need to look closely at the crossover I posted. There are two 68 uF caps for each speaker crossover. One is in the Net 1 woofer circuit at the C1021 position and the second is in the Net two circuit at the C2021 position. If you've not had any experience reading schematics and are familiar with the crossover symbols, I'd suggest you get someone to help solder them for you or have Meniscus assemble the crossover for you. The crossover has to be right or the speaker will not sound as designed.

The 68uF electrolytic cap Meniscus sent will work fine in the C1021 position. I prefer to use poly caps everywhere but there isn't anything wrong with using an electrolytic in
a woofer circuit. Do not use it in the mid crossover, however.

Jim

I understand the symbols, values and the schematic , ...my concerns are more
About WHICH Quality ,... Erse or better ? , NPE, Solen, of same value goes where??

The Solen .47uf was replaced with a Dayton, is that just as good ?

Should i replace the NPE Caps with Poly Caps which i presume are the
Solen caps ?

I just want to get everything as designed .
Thanks Jim !!!

[randyc1]

Chris is correct of course. The cap you have is an electrolytic rather than a poly as speced. It'll work but I wouldn't use it. I'm not sure where you got the crossover layouts but there have been no changes. The correct one is linked from here and is also available on Curt's website. I'm attaching it.

Jim

Why is Resistance R1011 of .3ohm in Net1 no longer on Curt's web CC plans ?

[Jim Holtz]

I understand the symbols, values and the schematic , ...my concerns are more
About WHICH Quality ,... Erse or better ? , NPE, Solen, of same value goes where??

The Solen .47uf was replaced with a Dayton, is that just as good ?

Should i replace the NPE Caps with Poly Caps which i presume are the
Solen caps ?

I just want to get everything as designed .
Thanks Jim !!!

I want to apologize if I came across as condescending. I didn't mean it that way. I was just trying to determine how comfortable you were with soldering and reading schematics.

Now, to answer your question, Dayton, Solen, Jantzen, Erse etc. poly caps are all similar in quality and will have a similar sound signature to them. The better Clarity caps are much more expensive but many feel they offer an upgrade in the tweeter circuit. Mid and woofer circuits will provide much less if any improvement by going to boutique caps.

The NPE 68uF cap will work fine in the woofer circuit and provide great sound. I prefer polys in all locations, but that's just me.

Jim

[Jim Holtz]

Why is Resistance R1011 of .3ohm in Net1 no longer on Curt's web CC plans ?

Any resistors that are less than 1.0 ohm and located next to an inductor reflect the DCR of the inductor. That value is used to determine which type of inductor you select. The proper ones will be included in the crossover parts of the kit.

Jim

[randyc1]

No worries Jim , i did'nt see it that way at all , i'm just gratefull your answering so many of my newbie questions !!

I want to apologize if I came across as condescending. I didn't mean it that way. I was just trying to determine how comfortable you were with soldering and reading schematics.

Now, to answer your question, Dayton, Solen, Jantzen, Erse etc. poly caps are all similar in quality and will have a similar sound signature to them. The better Clarity caps are much more expensive but many feel they offer an upgrade in the tweeter circuit. Mid and woofer circuits will provide much less if any improvement by going to boutique caps.

The NPE 68uF cap will work fine in the woofer circuit and provide great sound. I prefer polys in all locations, but that's just me.

Jim

[randyc1]

Is it me ??...or is even the "Corrected" 2nd CC crossover Meniscus plan Incorrect , (the bottom one)
Does'nt the 6.8uf go between the 1ohm and the 68uf ??,

You will want to use the bottom image from the Meniscus Audio page.

Curt's web site contains images for all the crossovers.
This is the mid-range network for the Statement center channel from his site:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]21853[/ATTACH]

and here is the Meniscus Audio page marked with the labels used in the schematic from Curt's site:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]21854[/ATTACH]

BTW - I would NOT wire it up just like that picture, I would add extra wire and have specific labelled connections for the source and the driver. The mids in the Statements are wired out of phase: the (+) on the driver is connected to the (-) of the source. It was easier for me to add extra wires and label everything on my boards so I didn't have to try and remember that when I connected the driver.

[Jim Holtz]

Is it me ??...or is even the "Corrected" 2nd CC crossover Meniscus plan Incorrect , (the bottom one)
Does'nt the 6.8uf go between the 1ohm and the 68uf ??,

I think Curt needs to take a peek at this. I'd suggest that you follow the crossover I posted which is the original one that has been used dozens and dozens of times.

Jim

[randyc1]

I assumed that after sending a 1st incorrect plan, the 2nd Corrected would have been double verified and I did not compare it to the Schematic plan ,.. so i used that to build my Mid crossover ?.
I'm pretty sure i will now have to correct it !!

I think Curt needs to take a peek at this. I'd suggest that you follow the crossover I posted which is the original one that has been used dozens and dozens of times.

Jim

[cjd]

You do not have the output +/- markings/wires correct unless you plan to cross-wire at the W4-1337, which I do not recommend; it's too easy down the road to need to replace that and NOT remember it has to be wired out of phase. As it is, the yellow has to go to the W4 (-) and the black goes to the W4 (+)

Otherwise, that is correct based on Curt's schematic.

[Curt C]

I assumed that after sending a 1st incorrect plan, the 2nd Corrected would have been double verified and I did not compare it to the Schematic plan ,.. so i used that to build my Mid crossover ?.
I'm pretty sure i will now have to correct it !!

I'm pretty sure too...
Its easy to make these transpositional errors. I do it all the tiem...

This drawing shows the correct termination for the 6.8 uF cap. Otherwise your crossover looks fine.

C

(Just to avoid any further confusion, this is the mid network for the Statement center channel)

[randyc1]

Thanks a million Curt !
What i dont understand is how Meniscus is sending me CC statement crossover pictures with errors ?, ( 3rd pic from beggining )
Dont they have the ORIGINAL plans in there files to photocopy for clients ?

I think i will post all the crossover pics from Meniscus just to make sure there are no more errors !


QUOTE=Curt C;574534]I'm pretty sure too...
Its easy to make these transpositional errors. I do it all the tiem...

This drawing shows the correct termination for the 6.8 uF cap. Otherwise your crossover looks fine.

C

(Just to avoid any further confusion, this is the mid network for the Statement center channel)[/QUOTE]

[Curt C]

The original files are the network schematics posted on my website, and while they look abundantly clear to me, perhaps they are not the easiest to interpret for some builders without electronics background. While it is unfortunate that there was an error made, Meniscus did intend to simplify the construction complexity by providing a pictorial drawing of the crossover networks. I think we can all agree that everyone makes mistakes, and I am certain there was no malevolence intended here, only willingness on their part to aid and support the DIY community.

I will contact Mark today and offer to confirm the accuracy and suitability of all the kits and materials of the designs associated with Jim Holtz and myself.

C

[randyc1]

The original files are the network schematics posted on my website, and while they look abundantly clear to me, perhaps they are not the easiest to interpret for some builders without electronics background. While it is unfortunate that there was an error made, Meniscus did intend to simplify the construction complexity by providing a pictorial drawing of the crossover networks. I think we can all agree that everyone makes mistakes, and I am certain there was no malevolence intended here, only willingness on their part to aid and support the DIY community.

I will contact Mark today and offer to confirm the accuracy and suitability of all the kits and materials of the designs associated with Jim Holtz and myself.

C

Thanks Curt , I contacted Mark over the phone today and yes like you mentioned it was a honest mistake, Mark will be sending the appropriate Caps and all will be good!

I had a difficult time Un-soldered the 6.8uf connection, and then made the correction,...I think I might have damaged the 6.8uf and .47uf caps ??.

When i use a Ohm meter to check for Continuity, on these 2 i get a continuous beeb ,... all the others ,installed or not, I get a Very short beeb ??

Before building my crossovers, they had all been checked ,..and Good, with a Cap meter at an electronics store near my place, but now i'm not sure ?

[Curt C]

Randy,
Are you measuring them in, or out of circuit?
Its not possible to check them in circuit, as their impedance will be shunted by the other components in the circuit, and would result in a continuous tone with the continuity checker.

If you get the continuous beep with them out of the circuit, I'd suggest you get a couple more caps coming from Mark.

With an ohmmeter out of circuit, they should both read open after initially reading a lower resistance.

C

[randyc1]

Randy,
Are you measuring them in, or out of circuit?
Its not possible to check them in circuit, as their impedance will be shunted by the other components in the circuit, and would result in a continuous tone with the continuity checker.

If you get the continuous beep with them out of the circuit, I'd suggest you get a couple more caps coming from Mark.

With an ohmmeter out of circuit, they should both read open after initially reading a lower resistance.

C

The .47uf and the 6.8uf that have a continuous tone are in circuit, the big poly is also in circuit but only has a short beep,..all the others not installed yet, also have just the one short beep ?

I will have them checked with a Cap meter to see if they measure the same ?

[Curt C]

I think they are probably still fine, Randy.

The only way to check the 0.47 and 6.8 uF caps, even with a cap checker, is to unsolder one of their leads first. The 0.47 in circuit is in series with a 10 ohm resistor and shunted by the 0.25 mH coil, and will measure the 10 ohms plus the DCR of the coil. The 6.8 uF is shunted by the 1 ohm and 8.2 ohm resistors, and will read 9.2 ohms with an ohmmeter. This is why the continuity check gives the continuous beep, because of the low resistance caused by the other components in circuit.
The 68 uF cap, while in circuit, is not shunted by any other components, so it is still possible to check it with your DMM continuity checker, or a cap checker.

C

[cjd]

FWIW I know Meniscus also messed up the Swope 3-way crossover - someone came here with a complaint about the bass and it devolved into a rather unhelpful discussion on the merits of this or that being better - it wasn't till someone over at PE posted the wrong diagram, and someone else made the connection to the guy here...

It's a nice service, but man can it screw things up

C

[randyc1]

OK here is "Corrected "CC MID crossover ,... and the Tweeter crossover while im at it ,just waiting for the Poly Cap to finish the Woofer crossover !

If there are any errors please let me know !!!!

the Mid & Tweet driver leads will be reversed color coded at the terminal for opposite phase.

[randyc1]

My resistors alone measured .1 to .2 higher than indicated,... but Yes Curt, the .47uf measures 10.4ohms and the 6.8uf measures 9.4ohms.

Thanks Curt !


Thanks curt !

I think they are probably still fine, Randy.

The only way to check the 0.47 and 6.8 uF caps, even with a cap checker, is to unsolder one of their leads first. The 0.47 in circuit is in series with a 10 ohm resistor and shunted by the 0.25 mH coil, and will measure the 10 ohms plus the DCR of the coil. The 6.8 uF is shunted by the 1 ohm and 8.2 ohm resistors, and will read 9.2 ohms with an ohmmeter. This is why the continuity check gives the continuous beep, because of the low resistance caused by the other components in circuit.
The 68 uF cap, while in circuit, is not shunted by any other components, so it is still possible to check it with your DMM continuity checker, or a cap checker.

C

[Curt C]

The crossovers look fine Randy!

The 'extra' 0.2 ohms is almost certainly the resistance of your meter leads. Just short the leads together, note the reading, and subtract that value from all resistance readings for your best accuracy...

C

[randyc1]

Your absolutely right Curt !My meter leads measure .2ohms ,..I had never noticed that, Thanks !!

One of my 12ohm resistors(for the Monitors), measures 12 ohms meaning 11.8ohms, is that close enough or should i get a real 12ohm resistor?

I live 10 min from Solen ,so if it's important i could pick up more resisters ??

The crossovers look fine Randy!

The 'extra' 0.2 ohms is almost certainly the resistance of your meter leads. Just short the leads together, note the reading, and subtract that value from all resistance readings for your best accuracy...

C

[Curt C]

You are good. No need to be concerned.

11.8 is less than 2% error. Certainly well within the acceptble margin of error. Consider also the accruacy of the measurement is only as good as the test equipment utilized. A good quality DMM could easily have a basic resistance error of 0.5% + 2 counts at this resistance range.

C

[randyc1]

OK great !

It's really nice having u around to answer all of our questions !!

B.T.W ,...I just started my "Build thread" with pictures .

You are good. No need to be concerned.

11.8 is less than 2% error. Certainly well within the acceptble margin of error. Consider also the accruacy of the measurement is only as good as the test equipment utilized. A good quality DMM could easily have a basic resistance error of 0.5% + 2 counts at this resistance range.

C

[Curt C]

OK great !

It's really nice having u around to answer all of our questions !!

Glad to help whenever I am able!
I don't get too much time for the forums anymore, so thanks also go Jim Holtz who gives me a gentle tap on the shoulder for occasions like this where I might be of some assistance...

C

[randyc1]

Do these two Monitor Statement (near wall, Mid) diagrams correspond ?? Looking at the components after the 50uf Cap ,.in parallel with Coil.

One has the 12ohm ,...then the .47uf connected to the rest

The other has the .47uf,... then the 12ohm connected to the rest .

Does it matter ??

[Jim Holtz]

Randy,

The top one matches Curt's original schematic. The original should always be your reference.

Jim

[BobEllis]

But in this case, either orientation will work. All that matters to the signal is that there is an RC totaling 12 ohms and 0.47 uf in series connected across the .25 mh inductor. If you break up the 12 ohms into 2 6ohm resistors for improved power handling, you could even put the cap between the two resistors and connect that across the inductor.

If there is a question of values or connection, as Jim says always use the original schematic. Sometimes people redraw incorrectly, other times you'll find they cannot find the exact values specified and substitute a close approximation. Within a few percent, this is probably inaudible.

[randyc1]

OK guys thanks !!!

[Curt C]

Bob is of course correct. Components in series can go in any order, as long as there is no other circuit branch going to some other point that originates from a junction within that group.

C

[PMazz]

2 6ohm resistors for improved power handling

I thought the only way to improve power handling was to double the resistor value and wire them in parallel?

[BobEllis]

Either way, Pete. Cut the resistor values in half and put them in series, double and put them in parallel or 4 of the same and put two parallel pairs in series. As long as you end up with the same net value in more resistors of the same power rating you are getting better power handling.

[randyc1]

Either way, Pete. Cut the resistor values in half and put them in series, double and put them in parallel or 4 of the same and put two parallel pairs in series. As long as you end up with the same net value in more resistors of the same power rating you are getting better power handling.

Is it because the more resistors u have, the more they can dissapate heat ?

[BobEllis]

Correct, Randy. As long as you use multiples of the same value they will share power dissipation equally and the new power rating is power rating multiplied by the number of resistors. This assumes equal power rating and good ventilation around each. If you bundle the resistors together tightly they will not be able to dissipate heat as well and their power handling is diminished.