In case anyone cares...:-)

I just finished putting my Dynaudio system 360 in my Maxima. Man I
MISSED these babies!!!

The 8s are in the doors behind the stock grills and the mids and tweets are
in Q-Logic kick panels.

Pics:

http://images.cardomain.com/member_i...50_89_full.jpg

http://images.cardomain.com/member_i...50_88_full.jpg

http://images.cardomain.com/member_i...50_87_full.jpg

Tony


--



What's more likely? That an all-powerful mysterious god created the
universe and then decided not to give any proof of his existence? Or, that
he simply doesn't exist at all? And that we created him so that we wouldn't
have to feel so small and alone. -Eleanor Arroway, Contact

In case anyone cares...:-)

I just finished putting my Dynaudio system 360 in my Maxima. Man I
MISSED these babies!!!

The 8s are in the doors behind the stock grills and the mids and tweets
are
in Q-Logic kick panels.

Yeah, but how's it SOUND?

"Yeah, but how's it SOUND? "

They sound frickin' GREAT!! Sometime down the line I may try to angle mount
the midwoofers slightly upwards and rearwards...if there's room. I'm also
waiting to install my PG EQ232 1/3 order EQ and run the system actively
using my PG ZX amps and ditch the passive Dyn xovers.

Which brings me to a question. When I had these speakers in my Explorer I
was running them actively. Dynaudio suggested I run a capacitor inline with
the tweeters. As per their recommendation I purchased some Solen capitors
from partsexpress and hooked 'em on to the tweeters. Each set of drivers
had their dedicated amp channel, a PG ZX475ti 4-channel driving the tweets
and midranges, and half of a PGZX450 4-channel driving the midwoofers (the
other half of the ZX450 drove my sub). Anyway, one day I was using my Radio
Shack SPL meter & a IASCA test disc to measure the frequency response of the
system. I then used the EQ 232 to flatten everything out. I notcied that
everything above 10KHz started sloping down considerably so I boosted those
frequencies (all the way up to 20KHz) to bring them flat. While doing so I
completely arc welded the tweeters.

Why did this happen? I "assumed" that flattening the response would not
have done any damage. What was the purpose of the capacitor?

Any help will be appreciated. I want to run the system actively as I did
before, but not at the expense of $200 tweeters.

Oh and the capacitor was a 20 uF +/- 5% 400VDC.

Tony


--



What's more likely? That an all-powerful mysterious god created the
universe and then decided not to give any proof of his existence? Or, that
he simply doesn't exist at all? And that we created him so that we wouldn't
have to feel so small and alone. -Eleanor Arroway, Contact

"Mark Zarella" wrote in message
...
In case anyone cares...:-)

I just finished putting my Dynaudio system 360 in my Maxima. Man I
MISSED these babies!!!

The 8s are in the doors behind the stock grills and the mids and tweets
are
in Q-Logic kick panels.

Yeah, but how's it SOUND?

They sound frickin' GREAT!! Sometime down the line I may try to angle
mount
the midwoofers slightly upwards and rearwards...if there's room. I'm also
waiting to install my PG EQ232 1/3 order EQ and run the system actively
using my PG ZX amps and ditch the passive Dyn xovers.

Which brings me to a question. When I had these speakers in my Explorer I
was running them actively. Dynaudio suggested I run a capacitor inline
with
the tweeters. As per their recommendation I purchased some Solen capitors
from partsexpress and hooked 'em on to the tweeters. Each set of drivers
had their dedicated amp channel, a PG ZX475ti 4-channel driving the tweets
and midranges, and half of a PGZX450 4-channel driving the midwoofers (the
other half of the ZX450 drove my sub). Anyway, one day I was using my
Radio
Shack SPL meter & a IASCA test disc to measure the frequency response of
the
system. I then used the EQ 232 to flatten everything out. I notcied that
everything above 10KHz started sloping down considerably so I boosted
those
frequencies (all the way up to 20KHz) to bring them flat. While doing so
I
completely arc welded the tweeters.

Why did this happen? I "assumed" that flattening the response would not
have done any damage.

The problem was most likely the fact that we (listeners of somewhat loud
audio systems that aren't bass/treble-heads) tend to like a downward sloping
frequency response. There are many reasons for this, one key one having to
do with the ear's frequency response which can "roughly" be demonstrated in
the psychophysics (although, that's actually the brain's effective
"frequency response", but that's partially derived from the ear's freq
response). You were probably cranking it up at the time and the highs were
playing a little higher than they otherwise would be. Kaboom. In addition,
you may have had the crossover point a little lower than you should have.

Oh yeah, I provided a copy of the Fletcher-Munson curve on my website.

http://www.geocities.com/audiotechpa...her-munson.gif

It essentially consists of "iso-loudness" lines on an intensity vs freq
plot. In other words, each line you see corresponds to a constant perceived
loudness. As you can see, in order for perceived loudness to remain
constant, the intensity does not have to be as high in the 1k-3kHz range as
it does at lower frequencies, or even at ultra-high frequencies, which
actually contain very little power content in typical music. A lot of
program material is already recorded on the bright side, so it's usually
unnecessary to try to boost the highs in an attempt to achieve flat
response. That's why I never recommend using an SPL meter to tune your
system. In fact, I often warn against it because it can adversely influence
people.

What was the purpose of the capacitor?

For protection of the tweeter in the case of the amplifier failing.

Any help will be appreciated. I want to run the system actively as I did
before, but not at the expense of $200 tweeters.

The Dynaudio guy's advice was good. I think your problem was trying to get
too much out of the tweeters to compensate for the SPL measurements. If you
want bright, you should buy brighter tweeters.

Oh and the capacitor was a 20 uF +/- 5% 400VDC.

400v? Overkill, but you don't really lose anything unless you have to go
with a polarized cap just to keep the size down. That's a definite no no.
Anyway, shoot for a cap with a cutoff frequency just lower than the lowest
possible frequency you'd select on the active crossover.

Tony Fernandes wrote:
In case anyone cares...:-)

I just finished putting my Dynaudio system 360 in my Maxima. Man I
MISSED these babies!!!

The 8s are in the doors behind the stock grills and the mids and tweets are
in Q-Logic kick panels.

Pics:

http://images.cardomain.com/member_i...50_89_full.jpg

http://images.cardomain.com/member_i...50_88_full.jpg

http://images.cardomain.com/member_i...50_87_full.jpg

Tony



Looks dope. Probably sounds dope too. How much was the project cost? Im
thinking of doing a similar set up in my 97 Suburban.

EFFENDI

Thanks, Mark. I wasn't necessarily trying to get the tweeters "brighter".
In fact, they sounded damn good as is, with just a slight boost. All I was
trying to do was fool around with the EQ to get the response flat. That
won't happen again it that particular frequency range...especially when I'm
running active with an entire dedicated amp channel to power two tiny
tweeters. Lesson learned.

Another question since you've been so helpful. :-) If I run the system
actively again, with the tweeters high-passed, the midrange bandpassed, and
the midwoofers low passed, there won't be any way with my current setup to
bandpass the midwoofers so they get everything from 70Hz-600Hz. What I did
last time was use the amp xover to LP the midwoofers at 600Hz and the EQ to
taper the freq off below 70Hz. Problem was when I did this I couldn't use
the EQ to tune the sub...so the sub channel went straight from the head unit
the amp and was LP at 70Hz. If I ran the Dyns AND the sub through the EQ,
there wouldn't be amy way to limit the lower frequencies, which I want to
do.

I don't know if I provided enough information for you to answer my question.

Tony


--



What's more likely? That an all-powerful mysterious god created the
universe and then decided not to give any proof of his existence? Or, that
he simply doesn't exist at all? And that we created him so that we wouldn't
have to feel so small and alone. -Eleanor Arroway, Contact

"Mark Zarella" wrote in message
news
They sound frickin' GREAT!! Sometime down the line I may try to angle
mount
the midwoofers slightly upwards and rearwards...if there's room. I'm
also
waiting to install my PG EQ232 1/3 order EQ and run the system actively
using my PG ZX amps and ditch the passive Dyn xovers.

Which brings me to a question. When I had these speakers in my Explorer
I
was running them actively. Dynaudio suggested I run a capacitor inline
with
the tweeters. As per their recommendation I purchased some Solen
capitors
from partsexpress and hooked 'em on to the tweeters. Each set of
drivers
had their dedicated amp channel, a PG ZX475ti 4-channel driving the
tweets
and midranges, and half of a PGZX450 4-channel driving the midwoofers
(the
other half of the ZX450 drove my sub). Anyway, one day I was using my
Radio
Shack SPL meter & a IASCA test disc to measure the frequency response of
the
system. I then used the EQ 232 to flatten everything out. I notcied
that
everything above 10KHz started sloping down considerably so I boosted
those
frequencies (all the way up to 20KHz) to bring them flat. While doing
so
I
completely arc welded the tweeters.

Why did this happen? I "assumed" that flattening the response would not
have done any damage.

The problem was most likely the fact that we (listeners of somewhat loud
audio systems that aren't bass/treble-heads) tend to like a downward
sloping
frequency response. There are many reasons for this, one key one having
to
do with the ear's frequency response which can "roughly" be demonstrated
in
the psychophysics (although, that's actually the brain's effective
"frequency response", but that's partially derived from the ear's freq
response). You were probably cranking it up at the time and the highs
were
playing a little higher than they otherwise would be. Kaboom. In
addition,
you may have had the crossover point a little lower than you should have.

Oh yeah, I provided a copy of the Fletcher-Munson curve on my website.

http://www.geocities.com/audiotechpa...her-munson.gif

It essentially consists of "iso-loudness" lines on an intensity vs freq
plot. In other words, each line you see corresponds to a constant
perceived
loudness. As you can see, in order for perceived loudness to remain
constant, the intensity does not have to be as high in the 1k-3kHz range
as
it does at lower frequencies, or even at ultra-high frequencies, which
actually contain very little power content in typical music. A lot of
program material is already recorded on the bright side, so it's usually
unnecessary to try to boost the highs in an attempt to achieve flat
response. That's why I never recommend using an SPL meter to tune your
system. In fact, I often warn against it because it can adversely
influence
people.

What was the purpose of the capacitor?

For protection of the tweeter in the case of the amplifier failing.

Any help will be appreciated. I want to run the system actively as I
did
before, but not at the expense of $200 tweeters.

The Dynaudio guy's advice was good. I think your problem was trying to
get
too much out of the tweeters to compensate for the SPL measurements. If
you
want bright, you should buy brighter tweeters.

Oh and the capacitor was a 20 uF +/- 5% 400VDC.

400v? Overkill, but you don't really lose anything unless you have to go
with a polarized cap just to keep the size down. That's a definite no no.
Anyway, shoot for a cap with a cutoff frequency just lower than the lowest
possible frequency you'd select on the active crossover.

EFFENDI wrote: "Looks dope. Probably sounds dope too. How much was the
project cost? Im thinking of doing a similar set up in my 97 Suburban."

Thanks. Let's see...I think I paid around $900 for Dyns and $170 for the
kicks. If you consider the doors were already damped, then the only other
costs would be MDF for the baffles, speaker wire, screws & silicone and
other misc stuff.

Tony




--



What's more likely? That an all-powerful mysterious god created the
universe and then decided not to give any proof of his existence? Or, that
he simply doesn't exist at all? And that we created him so that we wouldn't
have to feel so small and alone. -Eleanor Arroway, Contact

"EFFENDI" wrote in message
...
Tony Fernandes wrote:
In case anyone cares...:-)

I just finished putting my Dynaudio system 360 in my Maxima. Man I
MISSED these babies!!!

The 8s are in the doors behind the stock grills and the mids and tweets
are
in Q-Logic kick panels.

Pics:


http://images.cardomain.com/member_i...50_89_full.jpg


http://images.cardomain.com/member_i...50_88_full.jpg


http://images.cardomain.com/member_i...50_87_full.jpg

Tony



Looks dope. Probably sounds dope too. How much was the project cost? Im
thinking of doing a similar set up in my 97 Suburban.

EFFENDI

Thanks, Mark. I wasn't necessarily trying to get the tweeters "brighter".
In fact, they sounded damn good as is, with just a slight boost. All I
was
trying to do was fool around with the EQ to get the response flat. That
won't happen again it that particular frequency range...especially when
I'm
running active with an entire dedicated amp channel to power two tiny
tweeters. Lesson learned.

Another question since you've been so helpful. :-) If I run the system
actively again, with the tweeters high-passed, the midrange bandpassed,
and
the midwoofers low passed, there won't be any way with my current setup to
bandpass the midwoofers so they get everything from 70Hz-600Hz. What I
did
last time was use the amp xover to LP the midwoofers at 600Hz and the EQ
to
taper the freq off below 70Hz. Problem was when I did this I couldn't use
the EQ to tune the sub...so the sub channel went straight from the head
unit
the amp and was LP at 70Hz. If I ran the Dyns AND the sub through the EQ,
there wouldn't be amy way to limit the lower frequencies, which I want to
do.

I don't know if I provided enough information for you to answer my
question.

Short of buying a different amp for the woofers, you could add an active
crossover just to provide that high-pass. Otherwise, I thinkn the best
option would be to bypass EQ control of the sub. Since the sub plays just
narrowband anyway, you usually only have about 2 EQ bands to play with on
the sub anyway. As long as you still have a sub level control somewhere, it
shouldn't be a big difference.

Mark Zarella wrote: "Otherwise, I thinkn the best option would be to bypass
EQ control of the sub. Since the sub plays just narrowband anyway, you
usually only have about 2 EQ bands to play with on the sub anyway. As long
as you still have a sub level control somewhere, it shouldn't be a big
difference."

Yes, bypassing the sub seemed to be the easiest method. And the AP box
seems pretty well tuned anyway. And yes, I have the LPL sub controller in
the dash.

Thanks again.

Tony


--



What's more likely? That an all-powerful mysterious god created the
universe and then decided not to give any proof of his existence? Or, that
he simply doesn't exist at all? And that we created him so that we wouldn't
have to feel so small and alone. -Eleanor Arroway, Contact

"Mark Zarella" wrote in message
...
Thanks, Mark. I wasn't necessarily trying to get the tweeters
"brighter".
In fact, they sounded damn good as is, with just a slight boost. All I
was
trying to do was fool around with the EQ to get the response flat. That
won't happen again it that particular frequency range...especially when
I'm
running active with an entire dedicated amp channel to power two tiny
tweeters. Lesson learned.

Another question since you've been so helpful. :-) If I run the system
actively again, with the tweeters high-passed, the midrange bandpassed,
and
the midwoofers low passed, there won't be any way with my current setup
to
bandpass the midwoofers so they get everything from 70Hz-600Hz. What I
did
last time was use the amp xover to LP the midwoofers at 600Hz and the EQ
to
taper the freq off below 70Hz. Problem was when I did this I couldn't
use
the EQ to tune the sub...so the sub channel went straight from the head
unit
the amp and was LP at 70Hz. If I ran the Dyns AND the sub through the
EQ,
there wouldn't be amy way to limit the lower frequencies, which I want
to
do.

I don't know if I provided enough information for you to answer my
question.

Short of buying a different amp for the woofers, you could add an active
crossover just to provide that high-pass. Otherwise, I thinkn the best
option would be to bypass EQ control of the sub. Since the sub plays just
narrowband anyway, you usually only have about 2 EQ bands to play with on
the sub anyway. As long as you still have a sub level control somewhere,
it
shouldn't be a big difference.

I then used the EQ 232 to flatten everything out. I notcied that
everything above 10KHz started sloping down considerably so I boosted those
frequencies (all the way up to 20KHz) to bring them flat. While doing so I
completely arc welded the tweeters.

Why did this happen? I "assumed" that flattening the response would not
have done any damage. What was the purpose of the capacitor?

The purpose of the capacitor is to act as a first order (6dB/octave slope)
crossover. Essentially, for a 4 ohm tweeter, the 20 uF capacitor you placed
inline with the tweeter acted as a crossover at 2000 Hz (relatively low).
For a 8 ohm tweeter this crossover frequency would be even lower. If this is
the only protection your tweeters had against low frequencies, then it's not
hard to see why they "welded" themselves. I saw that you mentioned using
dynaudio's passive crossover, however, so I am working now under the
assumption that you are using that. If you did disconnect the passive
crossovers then you should definitely invest in a active crossover to go
before your amp for your high's and mid's.

If you are in fact using the passive crossovers, then adding the 20uF
capacitor in line with the tweeter would alter the characteristics of the
capacitor. Assuming you did put it on the positive terminal, the added
capacitance would do one of two things to the passive crossover.

#1 If the original crossover was a 2nd order, then the addition of the extra
capacitor would in fact make the passive crossover into a 3rd order
crossover. The problem with this is that the newly made 3rd order crossover
would actually have a lower crossover frequency. To what degree it would be
lower depends alot on what frequency it was crossed over at and what the
impedance of the speaker is at the crossover frequency.

Translation: adding the extra capacitor may have actually lowered the
crossover frequency of the original passive crossover and doing so caused
the tweeter to overheat due to the extra low frequencies passing through the
crossover.

#2 If the original crossover was a 3rd or 4th order then the added capacitor
would have actually raised the crossover frequency, which would not cause
any adverse power handling effects, but might not sound the best. In this
case, however, there is little to explain the failure of the tweeter.

If none of this makes sense, or if you have other questions email me at
gte768u(at)mail(dot)gatech(dot)edu

Oh and if you respond back, please include a detailed description of the
tweeters and amp setup. Specifically, the impedance of the tweeters and the
order of the passive crossovers that you had.

The purpose of the capacitor is to act as a first order (6dB/octave slope)
crossover. Essentially, for a 4 ohm tweeter, the 20 uF capacitor you
placed
inline with the tweeter acted as a crossover at 2000 Hz (relatively low).

He said he ran them with active xovers in addition though.

Thanks for the response, Dave. Yes...as Mark said, I ran them actively. I
can't remember what frequency I crossed them over at...I'm guessing
somewhere close to 5KHz. The amp was a Phoenix Gold ZX 475ti which is rated
at 75W per channel. Its xovers are 24dB/octave...compared to 6dB/octave
with the passives. According to Dynaudio, the tweeter's nominal long term
power handling was 100W (crossover dependent, whatever that means) with a
transient handling of 500W (for 10ms). The tweeter is 4 ohms.

Anyway, if I understand correctly the capacitor strictly acted as protection
from amp failure, not as a crossover. I have to admit I am extremely
uneducated in this department.

I still don't know exactly why it blew, but it won't deter me from running
the system actively again. The difference is phenomenal. I just won't play
around with the tweeter levels that dramatically again!

Tony




--



What's more likely? That an all-powerful mysterious god created the
universe and then decided not to give any proof of his existence? Or, that
he simply doesn't exist at all? And that we created him so that we wouldn't
have to feel so small and alone. -Eleanor Arroway, Contact

"David Malphurs" wrote in message
...
I then used the EQ 232 to flatten everything out. I notcied that
everything above 10KHz started sloping down considerably so I boosted
those
frequencies (all the way up to 20KHz) to bring them flat. While doing so
I
completely arc welded the tweeters.

Why did this happen? I "assumed" that flattening the response would not
have done any damage. What was the purpose of the capacitor?

The purpose of the capacitor is to act as a first order (6dB/octave slope)
crossover. Essentially, for a 4 ohm tweeter, the 20 uF capacitor you
placed
inline with the tweeter acted as a crossover at 2000 Hz (relatively low).
For a 8 ohm tweeter this crossover frequency would be even lower. If this
is
the only protection your tweeters had against low frequencies, then it's
not
hard to see why they "welded" themselves. I saw that you mentioned using
dynaudio's passive crossover, however, so I am working now under the
assumption that you are using that. If you did disconnect the passive
crossovers then you should definitely invest in a active crossover to go
before your amp for your high's and mid's.

If you are in fact using the passive crossovers, then adding the 20uF
capacitor in line with the tweeter would alter the characteristics of the
capacitor. Assuming you did put it on the positive terminal, the added
capacitance would do one of two things to the passive crossover.

#1 If the original crossover was a 2nd order, then the addition of the
extra
capacitor would in fact make the passive crossover into a 3rd order
crossover. The problem with this is that the newly made 3rd order
crossover
would actually have a lower crossover frequency. To what degree it would
be
lower depends alot on what frequency it was crossed over at and what the
impedance of the speaker is at the crossover frequency.

Translation: adding the extra capacitor may have actually lowered the
crossover frequency of the original passive crossover and doing so caused
the tweeter to overheat due to the extra low frequencies passing through
the
crossover.

#2 If the original crossover was a 3rd or 4th order then the added
capacitor
would have actually raised the crossover frequency, which would not cause
any adverse power handling effects, but might not sound the best. In this
case, however, there is little to explain the failure of the tweeter.

If none of this makes sense, or if you have other questions email me at
gte768u(at)mail(dot)gatech(dot)edu

Oh and if you respond back, please include a detailed description of the
tweeters and amp setup. Specifically, the impedance of the tweeters and
the
order of the passive crossovers that you had.

According to Dynaudio, the tweeter's nominal long term
power handling was 100W (crossover dependent, whatever that means) with a
transient handling of 500W (for 10ms). The tweeter is 4 ohms.

The problem is that it's not even close to that. They're quoting the
amplifier size to use when using passive xovers. It's a common practice.

I still don't know exactly why it blew,

Too much power.

why would using a passive crossover make it handle more power? I was always
told inline capacitors made little difference in terms of power output and
that the amp would still put the rated watts into the speaker. But after
reading thse posts I got thinking does a passive crossover work somehow by
altering the impedance drastically below the crossover point?Therefor the
amp only sees the 4 ohms at above the crossover point and anything below is
so high in impedance that the amp doesnt put hardly any power out at those
frequencies?If thats the case then that would make sense in assuming what I
heard earlier kind of.Meaning run a passive crossover inline with a speaker
thats rated at 100W RMS the amp really wouldnt be putting out a full 100W
RMS as rated since the cap raises the impedance so high the amp puts out
much less power so the only time it might ever see a 100W sound is above the
crossover frequencys which the tweeter is supposed to be designed to handle.
Is this correct or am I totally off base in my thinking?
Trying to learn something
wicked1
"Mark Zarella" wrote in message
...
According to Dynaudio, the tweeter's nominal long term
power handling was 100W (crossover dependent, whatever that means) with
a
transient handling of 500W (for 10ms). The tweeter is 4 ohms.

The problem is that it's not even close to that. They're quoting the
amplifier size to use when using passive xovers. It's a common practice.

I still don't know exactly why it blew,

Too much power.

why would using a passive crossover make it handle more power?

Because the crossover serves to limit power content to a speaker in the
frequency band that you've filtered out (that's what a filter is). If you
have a 100 watt amp and you're limiting the signal to 3kHz and up, then
you're drastically reducing the power going to the tweeter.

I was always
told inline capacitors made little difference in terms of power output and
that the amp would still put the rated watts into the speaker.

Nope. You're increasing the impedance (in certain freq bands) by using a
passive filter.

But after
reading thse posts I got thinking does a passive crossover work somehow by
altering the impedance drastically below the crossover point?Therefor the
amp only sees the 4 ohms at above the crossover point and anything below
is
so high in impedance that the amp doesnt put hardly any power out at those
frequencies?If thats the case then that would make sense in assuming what
I
heard earlier kind of.Meaning run a passive crossover inline with a
speaker
thats rated at 100W RMS the amp really wouldnt be putting out a full 100W
RMS as rated since the cap raises the impedance so high the amp puts out
much less power so the only time it might ever see a 100W sound is above
the
crossover frequencys which the tweeter is supposed to be designed to
handle.
Is this correct or am I totally off base in my thinking?
Trying to learn something

That's exactly right.

WOW I fugured something out today! I have been wondering about that one for
a while when I ran active crossovers to my R4's and they actually didnt take
as much power as with the "bass blocker" caps. Makes total sense now.I love
newsgroups
"Mark Zarella" wrote in message
...
why would using a passive crossover make it handle more power?

Because the crossover serves to limit power content to a speaker in the
frequency band that you've filtered out (that's what a filter is). If you
have a 100 watt amp and you're limiting the signal to 3kHz and up, then
you're drastically reducing the power going to the tweeter.

I was always
told inline capacitors made little difference in terms of power output
and
that the amp would still put the rated watts into the speaker.

Nope. You're increasing the impedance (in certain freq bands) by using a
passive filter.

But after
reading thse posts I got thinking does a passive crossover work somehow
by
altering the impedance drastically below the crossover point?Therefor
the
amp only sees the 4 ohms at above the crossover point and anything below
is
so high in impedance that the amp doesnt put hardly any power out at
those
frequencies?If thats the case then that would make sense in assuming
what
I
heard earlier kind of.Meaning run a passive crossover inline with a
speaker
thats rated at 100W RMS the amp really wouldnt be putting out a full
100W
RMS as rated since the cap raises the impedance so high the amp puts out
much less power so the only time it might ever see a 100W sound is above
the
crossover frequencys which the tweeter is supposed to be designed to
handle.
Is this correct or am I totally off base in my thinking?
Trying to learn something

That's exactly right.

Hi Tony,

Actually, it's simpler than that. I have the equivalent of a Dyn 340
set and was tossing around the idea of tri-amping it. I bounced it off
of Peter Lufrano and he said that adding a capacitor would avoid
problems that the Dynaudios have with DC on their inputs. Many amps
have a little DC on their outputs... especially amps that don't have
very strict quality control.

Putting a crossover between the amp and speaker kills the possibility
of DC... that's why you have to choose a cap that's below your
crossover value... you don't really need the extra xover slope, you
really need the DC protection.

smiles,
Jamie

In article , Tony Fernandes
wrote:

Anyway, if I understand correctly the capacitor strictly acted as protection
from amp failure, not as a crossover. I have to admit I am extremely
uneducated in this department.

Hi Tony,

Actually, it's simpler than that. I have the equivalent of a Dyn 340
set and was tossing around the idea of tri-amping it. I bounced it off
of Peter Lufrano and he said that adding a capacitor would avoid
problems that the Dynaudios have with DC on their inputs. Many amps
have a little DC on their outputs... especially amps that don't have
very strict quality control.

It's minor. On the order of 10mV. That's equivalent to roughly 2.5
milliwatts dissipated by a 4 ohm speaker. If the amp gets screwed up
though, it can be much more than this. But Dynaudio is no more prone to
failure from it than any other speaker.