New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Home-Made IEMs - Page 144

post #2146 of 2981
Quote:
Originally Posted by piotrus-g View Post

In simple words:
Low pass - resistor in series followed by capacitor in parallel connected to negative wire.

You HAVE TO use resistor or other driver first before cap wired to ground

And how do I pick what capacitor value to use?

post #2147 of 2981
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xymordos View Post
 

Hows the resolution of HODVTEC vs CI? I feel that HODVTEC seems be worse compared to the CI.

 

I don't actually use it for anything other than the low end, and I feel the HODVTEC is better than the CI as it has higher output even under a 2nd order lowpass filter to reduce the 1-2k hump.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CMOS1138 View Post
 

OK let me see if I can figure out that Diagram, so the Vout side is connected to the driver correct? and the caps are wired in parallel with the driver. are the caps in series with each other or in parallel? and based on what you are saying about picking the resistor to taste and that it controls volume, does that mean that the resistor is optional? could I achieve the same low pass effect with only the capacitors?

 

Resistor is not optional...

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by CMOS1138 View Post
 

And how do I pick what capacitor value to use?

 

I suggest you google RC lowpass filter. One main problem with the calculations is that they assume a ideal source, which has infinite current/constant voltage, in isolation. What it actually is in reality is the different filters and drivers have impedance, resistance, and capacitance that interact with each other in a passive circuit to give very different results than what you expect. Either measurement will be needed, or careful listening with sine sweeps. I personally just listen, but I'm still trying to measure the response of the earphones.

 

In general, higher cap values lower the cutoff frequency, either increasing the bandwidth for highpass, or reducing the bandwidth for lowpass filters and vice versa.

 

If for example you think the mids are too contaminated by the HODVTEC on a lowpass, keep increasing the capacitance used to lower the cut off frequency. I suggested 100uF as a starting point, but feel free to experiment with other values.

post #2148 of 2981
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xymordos View Post

 

 

Definitely doesn't look like 711. Looks more like 2cc or some kind of "X" cc tubing. Couplers that don't have resonators to simulate canal gain often have that "sagging reverse U" shape.

post #2149 of 2981
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomscy2000 View Post
 

 

Definitely doesn't look like 711. Looks more like 2cc or some kind of "X" cc tubing. Couplers that don't have resonators to simulate canal gain often have that "sagging reverse U" shape.

 

I see, thanks. I guess I'll use my UERM as a baseline while tuning, since the UERM graph is more or less straight, other than that 10k peak.

post #2150 of 2981

Actually you can use just a capacitor without the resistor for a mild lowpass effect. Here I have a 47uF capacitor parallel with a ED-23147 driver (red=with cap, blue=without):

 

post #2151 of 2981

Thank you all for the great information. Now i need to purchase an array of resistors and capacitors and test test test.

post #2152 of 2981

Ironically, I'm now using the CI as a highs driver by putting it in series with a 0.4uF cap. It doesn't add anything the HODVTEC can't do for the bass, and I find that the treble extension of the GQ is too weak, possibly due to my internal acoustic path design. It's never used as I expect it to be used haha.

post #2153 of 2981

Wow really? CI gives a punchy bass doesn't it? The HODVTEC seems to be a bit...fat in terms of bass. Does the GQ have a built in x-over?

post #2154 of 2981
Quote:
Originally Posted by vector1 View Post
 

Ironically, I'm now using the CI as a highs driver by putting it in series with a 0.4uF cap. It doesn't add anything the HODVTEC can't do for the bass, and I find that the treble extension of the GQ is too weak, possibly due to my internal acoustic path design. It's never used as I expect it to be used haha.


I don't want to crush your designs but that's pretty useless crossover point for CI.

If it doesn't do it for you, why don't you switch to some other driver like BK, EF or TWFK?


Edited by piotrus-g - 8/15/14 at 3:17am
post #2155 of 2981

I find that GQ is pretty decent by itself, but when combined with HODVTEC, the subbass bleeds slightly into the bass, which caused it to sound muddy. While cutting it further is not possible, I repurposed the CI instead to a highs which it gives the crisp vocals I look for when combined with the GQ.

 

I would suggest either CI or HODVTEC alone as the bass, but after some A/B testing I prefer the HODVTEC sound, so CI has to go somewhere else. CI subbass is also much weaker than HODVTEC, and while CI has stronger bass, that region is the last area I want to emphasize as it causes the whole sound to be too forwards in the mids.

 

In other words, my current setup runs HODVTEC on 2nd low pass filters for sub-bass, GQ on 100uF high pass filter to avoid the sub-bass while keeping mids and highs, then CI on a 0.4uF cap to pass the highs only.

post #2156 of 2981
Quote:
Originally Posted by piotrus-g View Post
 


I don't want to crush your designs but that's pretty useless crossover point for CI.

If it doesn't do it for you, why don't you switch to some other driver like BK, EF or TWFK?

I know it's useless, but I already bought it. In hindsight, a WBFK would do just fine in this design instead of a CI. This is my 2nd attempt :D.

post #2157 of 2981

The HODVTEC I used gave a fat bass which I didn't like. I preferred the CI's clean and punchy bass, and also thought that the details from the CI was more refined. My 5 driver combination sounds very clear and detailed, with extremely hard hitting bass that is also clean (not sure if that is a good thing...but it sounds good for me). Resolution is superb, and I think I will make another one just like this in the future but better quality (no need to tune as much). I never managed to polish my shells to shine properly and there are acrylic residue everywhere on the shells :(

 

If Sonion 3800 behaves like the DTEC series, are the Sonion 4400 series similar to the SWFK? 


Edited by Xymordos - 8/15/14 at 6:01am
post #2158 of 2981
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xymordos View Post
 

If Sonion 3800 behaves like the DTEC series, are the Sonion 4400 series similar to the SWFK? 

No. 4400 is full-range and for IEM I would use it for mids only. It doesn't have strong highs.

There is no Sonion SWFK, actually there is no Sonion FK-resembling driver. This is where KA exceeds Sonion. I once talked to engineer at Sonion why they don't make true tweeter like FK/WBFK and he said something like they were happy with 2300 sound and they didn't see need for anything different at the time.

post #2159 of 2981
Quote:
Originally Posted by piotrus-g View Post
 

No. 4400 is full-range and for IEM I would use it for mids only. It doesn't have strong highs.

There is no Sonion SWFK, actually there is no Sonion FK-resembling driver. This is where KA exceeds Sonion. I once talked to engineer at Sonion why they don't make true tweeter like FK/WBFK and he said something like they were happy with 2300 sound and they didn't see need for anything different at the time.

Interesting, you would think such a small driver would have better highs :P The Knowles FK series I feel really makes the highs more detailed and airy.

post #2160 of 2981
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xymordos View Post
 

Interesting, you would think such a small driver would have better highs :P The Knowles FK series I feel really makes the highs more detailed and airy.

I don't know... I think FK is something proprietary like different diaphragm material or something about its motor but there's no other driver I know of that compares to FK. Plus SWFK has definitely type III damping.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home