Ni core vs. M6 core

[analag]

Tell us about M6 vs M4 cores.

 

[edcorusa]

[quote author="analag"]Tell us about M6 vs M4 cores.[/quote]

I am sorry, I have not herd of M4. I have check my suppliers and books and could not find any referance to M4. If any one has information on it I would be thankful in you could let me know. I would be interest in finding out about it.

 

[Gus]

http://www.duncanamps.com/technical/transformers.html

 

[alk509]

That's a nice link, Gus. Thanks!

Peace,
Al.

 

[CJ]

Don't forget the 4 mil stuff, like the cool C cores found in the Langevin outputs.

 

[rafafredd]

here in Brazil most of what we get is M4.

 

[analag]

http://www.alphacore.com/cores.htm

I get most of my cores from here.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Cool link. Thanks for sharing...

 

[analag]

So how does the Edcor transformers sound. Something like the XSM10K/150 as a line level output trannie. I also wish more data was available on these things.

 

[Larrchild]

How bout them powdered cores? They ever gonna sound good? :?

 

[mr coffee]

Great Thread folks.

Edcor said

Ni and M6 have real different saturation and distortion characteristics. Forgive me, but M6 saturates at about 17,000 gauss and Ni about 5,000 gauss. The 1% distortion levels are at about 14,000 gauss and 4,000 gauss. Now what do you suppose one of the key ingredients is in the determination of primary turns? Walla,
it is the flux density and so as the flux goes down the turns must go up in a direct proportion. The saturation curves look really different on the scope and I am sure they sound really different, like sharp to smooth.

There seems to be a great deal of hype for big expensive Ni transformers and yet many highly respected classic transformers (line level) seem to use modified gap soft iron cores.

Can your share any more about your findings about the saturation behavior of transformers using M6 cores ?

And Thank You for your excellent essay addressing this issue! :thumb:

 

[CJ]

Powder cores are rapidly relacing laminations. At least, according to one shop down the street.
Al values are going up.
Two piece design, if not brittle, is a time saver.

 

[mr coffee]

Hi CJ,

Powder cores are rapidly relacing laminations.

For audio apps? :shock:

 

[CJ]

I hope not.
Stock up just in case!

 

[analag]

http://www.audiotransformers.net/tech_notes/tn41.htm
http://www.audiotransformers.net/tech_notes/tn12.htm

Well I ordered a couple transformers from EDCOR today. They will be featured in my next project

 

[Bauman]

Dont be afraid, try some M4, it not that bad!!! :thumb:

 

[alk509]

Actually, shouldn't M4 be better than M6? Less losses and such?

Peace,
Al.

 

[rafafredd]

I do think so. We only have M4 in Brazil. I do like transformers made out of those lams by Lynx audio a LOT!

He is currently winding a 5116b based output transformer in a M4 C core for me. If it works nice, I´ll have many made, as I bought a lot of twelve M4 C cores.

This core is a little larger than the original Langevin.

 

[analag]

I have wound transformers with both M4 and M6 laminations, these things actually have a sound, in that I mean the way they go into saturation. Nickel don't saturate gracefully at all.

 

[edcorusa]

[quote author="Bauman"]Dont be afraid, try some M4, it not that bad!!! :thumb:[/quote]

:sad: I have check with a few steel lamination companies about M4 vs. M6 steel. The M4 is a M6 steel that has been rolled down to 0.011? apposed to the standard M6 that is 0.014? thick. The M6 has a 5% more efficient stacking factor. The M4 is also more expensive and harder to get in the US. Because it is a thinner lamination you can not use stacking machines with it. This increase the price of the transformer final cost and is not any better. I have not tested the performance, but have looked at the curves and data prodived to me by the steel lamination companies. They do carry it, and I might see about getting a sample and try it out in the future. :idea: