Big Iron versus Little Nickel Vs Cobalt at the Input

GroupDIY Audio Forum

Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

mikka

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 2, 2005
Messages
336
Location
Australia
I was told once that some people preferred the sound of a big iron transformer at the front..... it made the sound "bigger". Nickel is probably more accurate...

Anyone wanna comment on this? I'm curious....

And the sound of high cobalt/permendur...... the toroidal tapes are available....I expect the MOQ would be pretty high.... but anyone got a comment on the sound of these?
 
Thanks Gyraf... I've asked a similar question before.....

I should just go do it not ask about it.... :green:

PS: I LOVE MR GREEN :green: :green: :green: :green: :green:
 
they sound different?
I understand that for a microphone a small transformer is needed and that requires a more permeable material to have the same inductance with less size, but if the size is not important and both transformers are working in the linear zone , which can be the difference? greater or smaller hysteresis?

Rafael
 
Smaller size means more bandwidth due to less capacitance which is due to a higher perm core which means less turns and therefor less capacitance.
 
then, if I design a mic transformer using iron and with interleaving to reduce the capacitance it will sound close to a nickel or other high perm material ? or there is a character on each kind of core material? is the size the main reason to choose the core material?

Rafael
 
Interleaving reduces leakage inductance, not capacitance.
It makes capacitance go up.

You need about 4 or 5 times as much wire to get the same juice out of a M6 core. So you might have a hard time using M6 for a mic input.

You can make the core bigger, but this causes other differentia;ls to go up in value, like dcr, capacitance...

Cobalt lams are still around.
Mag Met has the Super Q alloy, for instance.

Some people say cobalt is too slow and does not belong in an audio xfmr.

Others say it improves bass.

Then their's the annealing, and a bunch of other stuff.

Let me dredge up some Grosner or somebody.

http://vacuumbrain.com/The_Lab/TA/Transformer_Design/Cobalt/cobalt_a.jpg
http://vacuumbrain.com/The_Lab/TA/Transformer_Design/Cobalt/cobalt_b.jpg
http://vacuumbrain.com/The_Lab/TA/Transformer_Design/Cobalt/cobalt_c.jpg
http://vacuumbrain.com/The_Lab/TA/Transformer_Design/Cobalt/cobalt_d.jpg
http://vacuumbrain.com/The_Lab/TA/Transformer_Design/Cobalt/cobalt_g.jpg
http://vacuumbrain.com/The_Lab/TA/Transformer_Design/Cobalt/cobalt_h.jpg
 
Firstly, I'm not a tech or an engineer.....

Secondly... I probably did too many of the wrong drugs at the wrong time.......

This is some of what's in my head.... right or wrong.....I think some rock dudes like the sound of big iron.....really big iron....at the front end..

It's less accurate but I suspect that with the phase shift, time constant (does that apply?) and general audio mess running around in those big lams..... it makes the sound "bigger"......(all f#4ked up.... if you're into classical)

The frequency response is likely to suffer... as CJ pointed out. And I talk too much and do too little.... but if CJ hasn't had a go when his machine is together... I'll give it a good shot and report back..... it's on my "to do" list.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top