Home Tweakers' Asylum

Tweaks for systems, rooms and Do It Yourself (DIY) help. FAQ.

Re: What geometry are S&B 102 transformers?

Hi Gordan:

I read your same post and a reply which Kevin Carter made on the K&K forum. And I agree with Kevin's response, which was;

:::It's rarely true that one particular parameter or component is solely responsible for the sonic success of an audio design. I'm sure that a double C-core TVC could be made to sound inferior to an E-I core TVC.:::

Your oversimplifying a complex product and trying to reduce it's goodness to a single parameter. And it logically can't be done. It's entirely probable that a shitty sounding trans can be built on any of the extant core materials or shapes. And the opposite is equally probable.

I'll address one other issue you raise;

:::EI cores are much cheaper to produce than double-C core...:::

again, this is a simplistic assumption that is surely not a universal truth--

c-cores are generally purchased wound and cut and ready to use. Generally the price of a c-core (in a sense the assembly of which has been done for you) is higher than purchasing X number of pounds of the same material as a punched lamination (say in the shape of an EI).

But... and it is a big but.... once we factor in the total cost of purchasing, stacking, and impregnating the EI laminations into a finished product--- then, depending on the labor costs--- it is often equal in cost or darn, darn close to equaling the cost of using a c-core.

Remember, you can basically use the c-core right out of the box--- the EI's are like buying all the parts to make a car--- but you still have to put all the parts together. Once you factor in the costs of putting the EI lams together--- it's not always the case that the EI was a cheaper alternative--- and sometimes it will prove to be more expensive than purchasing a c-core assembly.

I won't go into the performance issues and benefits-and-disadvantages of c-core vs say EI's... I sense that (from your post) you have already reached your own conclusions.

Also--- the cost matrix I have pointed out above--- assumes use of say a relatively inexpensive core material like M6. Once you start going into the exotics--- the cost differentials btwn c-cores and EI's quickly evaporates since it is the raw materials costs themselves that form the largest marginal cost of the core---

also--- you make the assumption (since you've not had it apart) that S&B is, in fact, using an EI shaped lamination. When in fact there is a wide range of different core shapes that are produced as a punched lamination. UI, F, D, EI, EE, are just a few of the shapes available.

And, as just one example, a UI lamination will frequently have the same F to G ratios as a traditional c-core will have. So that it will have the same path length and the same window area as the c-core which it might replace or be used in place of.

There are some potential advantages to using the punched lams vs a c-core in certain applications. If you go to the MQ forum and do a search--- you'll find posts in which I have explored these same issues.

MSL



This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
  Amplified Parts  


Follow Ups Full Thread
Follow Ups


You can not post to an archived thread.