Handy guide to the "proper" juxtaposition of inductors in crossovers

Saw this uploaded to Flikr & thought it was a simple and handy guide for anyone who's wondering about how to arrange inductors in a circuit to minimize any deleterious cross-coupling between inductors. :)

7iyiem22gs1o.png

source: https://flic.kr/p/Mo3DfH
«1

Comments

  • F1nut
    F1nut Posts: 49,708
    Good post Mark. I saw someone's crossover upgrade recently that could have used that info.
    Political Correctness'.........defined

    "A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a t-u-r-d by the clean end."


    President of Club Polk

  • gmcman
    gmcman Posts: 1,739
    @mhardy6647 Thanks for sharing that.

    So does this put the setup for some of our inductors in the "very bad" category? Or does the plastic framework reduce this cross-coupling?

    Web pic of 2.3TL factory inductor layout.

    t6lw51336eig.jpg
  • mhardy6647
    mhardy6647 Posts: 32,926
    Any normal plastic should be invisibile to the electromagnetic fields around the inductors. Those two are at right angles, which is good -- their physical proximity is less good, but we're still not lookin' at a worst case scenario -- so all is probably fine.

  • delkal
    delkal Posts: 764
    mhardy6647 wrote: »
    Any normal plastic should be invisibile to the electromagnetic fields around the inductors. Those two are at right angles, which is good -- their physical proximity is less good, but we're still not lookin' at a worst case scenario -- so all is probably fine.

    Unless I am seeing it wrong it looks like number 4.............Very bad and worse case scenario
  • VR3
    VR3 Posts: 27,966
    That is proper placement, no worries

    That placement is not even on the chart and it is fine
    - Not Tom ::::::: Any system can play Diana Krall. Only the best can play Limp Bizkit.
  • gmcman
    gmcman Posts: 1,739
    VR3 wrote: »
    That placement is not even on the chart and it is fine

    Unless I'm seeing incorrectly...looks just like fig 4 when rotated 90 deg.
  • mhardy6647
    mhardy6647 Posts: 32,926
    edited September 2018
    Some info from Pat McGinty (the "Meadolark" guy) on empirically testing for inductive coupling here:
    http://www.hifihaven.org/index.php?threads/a-little-pictorial-guide-on-the-juxtaposition-of-inductors-in-a-crossover-for-diy-or-refreshing.4024/#post-76833
    The problem with the juxtaposition shown in the photo a few posts back is the physical proximity of the coils. It's certainly not optimal, but it is probably, empirically, fine.
  • VR3
    VR3 Posts: 27,966
    My experience with measuring inductors says that it makes such a small difference that it won't matter
    - Not Tom ::::::: Any system can play Diana Krall. Only the best can play Limp Bizkit.
  • VR3
    VR3 Posts: 27,966
    I've found 2, 3 and 8 to be the worst
    - Not Tom ::::::: Any system can play Diana Krall. Only the best can play Limp Bizkit.
  • steveinaz
    steveinaz Posts: 19,521
    No, not like #4. His 2 are sitting on edge, neither is sitting flat.
    Source: Bluesound Node 2i - Preamp/DAC: Benchmark DAC2 DX - Amp: Parasound Halo A21 - Speakers: MartinLogan Motion 60XTi - Shop Rig: Yamaha A-S501 Integrated - Shop Spkrs: Elac Debut 2.0 B5.2
  • gmcman
    gmcman Posts: 1,739
    edited September 2018
    For the record, I'm not doubting how well the crossovers work, and they do with the orientation in my pic..just comparing to the diagram.
    steveinaz wrote: »
    No, not like #4. His 2 are sitting on edge, neither is sitting flat.

    What if we take the pic and rotate 90 deg, then instead of looking at the top, imagine looking at the side...nearest the bottom of this pic.

    fvj7d8xodkpi.jpg
  • ZLTFUL
    ZLTFUL Posts: 5,640
    The point is, they are 90* orientation from each other which helps reduce the inductive interference.
    Greater distance = OK solution
    90* = better solution
    90* + greater distance = best solution
    "Some people find it easier to be conceited rather than correct."

    "Unwad those panties and have a good time man. We're all here to help each other, no matter how it might appear." DSkip
  • mhardy6647
    mhardy6647 Posts: 32,926
    ZLTFUL wrote: »
    The point is, they are 90* orientation from each other which helps reduce the inductive interference.
    Greater distance = OK solution
    90* = better solution
    90* + greater distance = best solution


    egg-zack-a-tack-ly.

    :|
  • gmcman
    gmcman Posts: 1,739
    ZLTFUL wrote: »
    The point is, they are 90* orientation from each other which helps reduce the inductive interference.
    Greater distance = OK solution
    90* = better solution
    90* + greater distance = best solution

    I agree.

    This is also 90 deg. I want to say that #4 is not referring to this, but the 1st pic.

    omv6xj0r78mw.jpg





    And again, just curious if either way will make a larger difference, especially in our crossovers.

    I'm not complaining....speakers sound great. B)
  • mhardy6647
    mhardy6647 Posts: 32,926
    as a truism -- a little more space between inductors is better if circumstances permit. I like to give my DIY XOs room to breathe :) In fact -- why put 'em in the box at all? No real value added (especially if one wishes to... umm... experiment.

  • verb
    verb Posts: 10,176
    Interesting lesson professor. I found this. Right hand rule. Explains why the orientation and 90 angles can be placed closer together.
    70thmlkv5471.png
    Basement: Polk SDA SRS 1.2tl's, Cary SLP-05 Pre with ultimate upgrade,McIntosh MCD301 CD/SACD player, Northstar Designs Excelsio DAC, Cambridge 851N streamer, McIntosh MC300 Amp, Silnote Morpheus Ref2, Series2 Digital Cables, Silnote Morpheus Ref2 Series2 XLR's, Furman 15PFi Power Conditioner, Pangea Power Cables, MIT Shotgun S3 IC's, MIT Shotgun S1 Bi-Wire speaker cables
    Office: PC, EAR Acute CD Player, EAR 834L Pre, Northstar Designs Intenso DAC, Antique Sound Labs AV8 Monoblocks, Denon UDR-F10 Cassette, Acoustic Technologies Classic FR Speakers, SVS SB12 Plus sub, MIT AVt2 speaker cables, IFI Purifier2, AQ Cinnamon USB cable, Groneberg Quatro Reference IC's
    Spare Room: Dayens Ampino Integrated Amp, Tjoeb 99 tube CD player (modified Marantz CD-38), Analysis Plus Oval 9's, Zu Jumpers, AudioEngine B1 Streamer, Klipsch RB-61 v2, SVS PB1000 sub, Blue Jeans RCA IC's, Shunyata Hydra 8 Power Conditioner
    Living Room: Peachtree Nova Integrated, Cambridge CXN v2 Streamer, Rotel RCD-1072 CD player, Furman 15PFi Power Conditioner, Polk RT265 In Wall Speakers, Polk DSW Pro 660wi sub
    Garage #1: Cambridge Audio 640A Integrated Amp, Project Box-E BT Streamer, Polk Tsi200 Bookies, Douglas Speaker Cables, Shunyata Power Conditioner
    Garage #2: Cambridge Audio EVO150 Integrated Amplifier, Polk L200's, Analysis Plus Silver Oval 2 Speaker Cables, IC's TBD.
  • verb wrote: »
    Interesting lesson professor. I found this. Right hand rule. Explains why the orientation and 90 angles can be placed closer together.
    70thmlkv5471.png

    What is this about again?
  • ZLTFUL
    ZLTFUL Posts: 5,640
    verb wrote: »
    Interesting lesson professor. I found this. Right hand rule. Explains why the orientation and 90 angles can be placed closer together.
    70thmlkv5471.png

    What is this about again?

    It's about the "flow" Ken!
    "Some people find it easier to be conceited rather than correct."

    "Unwad those panties and have a good time man. We're all here to help each other, no matter how it might appear." DSkip
  • delkal
    delkal Posts: 764
    All of the inductor photos are the same as what is shown in figure 4. And if the table is correct it is the worse setup. It doesn't matter if the inductors are placed flat side by side, tilted side by side or even on top of each other on a board. The only thing that matters is the orientation of the copper windings. It is number 4.

    You can se it easier if you put your pointer finger on each hand thru the hole in each inductor. Your fingers will be pointing in a T. No other orientation in the table will do that.

    But is this table correct?

  • delkal
    delkal Posts: 764
    VR3 wrote: »
    My experience with measuring inductors says that it makes such a small difference that it won't matter

    Do you take the measurement when BOTH inductors are hooked up, charged and have a current? Testing one inductor at a time won't show much of an effect. And if the neighboring inductor is not hooked up to anything it will have zero effect (no circuit for the coil to do anything). But when both inductors are charged and acting like a magnet thats when you will have a big effect.

  • Viking64
    Viking64 Posts: 6,646
    I just want to eat doughnuts.
  • delkal
    delkal Posts: 764
    Viking64 wrote: »
    I just want to eat doughnuts.

    Put a doughnut on each pointer finger, look at the chart, play around a little, then eat them!

    If you still don't see it get the next two doughnuts...............
  • Viking64
    Viking64 Posts: 6,646
    delkal wrote: »
    Put a doughnut on each pointer finger, look at the chart, play around a little, then eat them!

    If you still don't see it get the next two doughnuts...............

    Or maybe an electrolytic cannoli?
  • F1nut
    F1nut Posts: 49,708
    gmcman wrote: »
    ZLTFUL wrote: »
    The point is, they are 90* orientation from each other which helps reduce the inductive interference.
    Greater distance = OK solution
    90* = better solution
    90* + greater distance = best solution

    I agree.

    This is also 90 deg. I want to say that #4 is not referring to this, but the 1st pic.

    omv6xj0r78mw.jpg





    And again, just curious if either way will make a larger difference, especially in our crossovers.

    I'm not complaining....speakers sound great. B)

    That is the same as #4 because the coils are going in the same direction. That is, if you stood up the one laying down it would be parallel to the one on end. Now, if the one laying down was stood up on end and turned 90 degrees that would be good.
    Political Correctness'.........defined

    "A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a t-u-r-d by the clean end."


    President of Club Polk

  • F1nut
    F1nut Posts: 49,708
    edited September 2018
    delkal wrote: »
    All of the inductor photos are the same as what is shown in figure 4. And if the table is correct it is the worse setup. It doesn't matter if the inductors are placed flat side by side, tilted side by side or even on top of each other on a board. The only thing that matters is the orientation of the copper windings. It is number 4.

    You can se it easier if you put your pointer finger on each hand thru the hole in each inductor. Your fingers will be pointing in a T. No other orientation in the table will do that.

    But is this table correct?

    In gmcman's photo the coils are in a "T" configuration, which is ok.
    Political Correctness'.........defined

    "A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a t-u-r-d by the clean end."


    President of Club Polk

  • agfrost
    agfrost Posts: 2,421
    gmcman's picture is "none of the above" when looking at the original diagrams. The SDA inductors are placed like this:

    l80uaf4hk3gg.png
    Jay
    SDA 2BTL * Musical Fidelity A5cr amp * Oppo BDP-93 * Modded Adcom GDA-600 DAC * Rythmik F8 (x2)
    Micro Seiki DQ-50 * Hagerman Cornet 2 Phono * A hodgepodge of cabling * Belkin PF60
    Preamp rotation: Krell KSL (SCompRacer recapped) * Manley Shrimp * PS Audio 5.0
  • delkal
    delkal Posts: 764
    Lets just say this is not a handy guide. It is either wrong with number 4 being very bad or that a lot of people can't understand the difference between number 4 and number 6.
  • Viking64
    Viking64 Posts: 6,646
    I've been up all night testing these various examples and I still haven't been able to sew the ripped 3/4 sleeve of my Captain and Tennille baseball shirt. :'(

    7hz6ozbgni7x.jpg
  • agfrost
    agfrost Posts: 2,421
    delkal wrote: »
    Lets just say this is not a handy guide. It is either wrong with number 4 being very bad or that a lot of people can't understand the difference between number 4 and number 6.

    Care to illuminate us as to who comprises "a lot of people?"
    Jay
    SDA 2BTL * Musical Fidelity A5cr amp * Oppo BDP-93 * Modded Adcom GDA-600 DAC * Rythmik F8 (x2)
    Micro Seiki DQ-50 * Hagerman Cornet 2 Phono * A hodgepodge of cabling * Belkin PF60
    Preamp rotation: Krell KSL (SCompRacer recapped) * Manley Shrimp * PS Audio 5.0
  • agfrost
    agfrost Posts: 2,421
    ...I'll follow up my previous diagram with this one, which I posit is the same as number 4 (and different from the first one I posted). In essence an "L" instead of a "T".

    zarlyv20qsqg.png


    Not an electrical engineer nor a crossover designer, so I can't wax poetic as to why/how these are different, but my visual-spatial skills tell me there's a difference.
    Jay
    SDA 2BTL * Musical Fidelity A5cr amp * Oppo BDP-93 * Modded Adcom GDA-600 DAC * Rythmik F8 (x2)
    Micro Seiki DQ-50 * Hagerman Cornet 2 Phono * A hodgepodge of cabling * Belkin PF60
    Preamp rotation: Krell KSL (SCompRacer recapped) * Manley Shrimp * PS Audio 5.0