• Welcome to ASR. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Iron-core vs. air-core inductor distortion in speaker crossovers.

Cold rolled steel
I've never heard of a laminated core crossover inductor using anything other than electrical steel. Feel free to provide evidence for your claim.

Still, all of this only matters well above 100 kHz.
Depends on what you mean by "matters". A typical laminated core crossover inductor will have considerable core losses at 100kHz. Of course, this doesn't matter for the intended application. In the audio band, the losses are certainly low enough to have no material impact on frequency response.

If the core losses indeed are very low, it should feel cool to the touch.
You forgot to consider copper losses.
 
I have yet to hear a valve (tube) amplifier that sounds as good to me as a well designed solid state amplifier. ...

With regard to core losses, the next time you have your valve amplifier being pushed hard, put your hand on one of the output transformers. If the core losses indeed are very low, it should feel cool to the touch, i.e., not more than a 5-10 degrees over ambient temperature, depending in part on the size of the magnet wire used to wind the transformer.
This thread is about inductor iron core distortion - you area talking about something different. Losses from DCR of the output transformer winding in valve output transformers (i.e. temperature) have nothing in common with distortion.
 
I've never heard of a laminated core crossover inductor using anything other than electrical steel. Feel free to provide evidence for your claim.
Well, evidently you did not work at a certain crossover manufacturer back in the late 80's/early 90's. I'm not going to disclose its name, but it supplied crossovers to some big speaker brands, some of which still are popular today. We definitely were NOT using silicon steel for our inductor cores. They were plated steel laminations that came from Taiwan in boxes filled with individual pieces. The workers would insert the steel laminations into a bobbin after it had been wound. They were press fit and no glue was used, though hot melt would be used toward the end of assembly.

You forgot to consider copper losses.
You must have started quoting before my edit.
 
Depends on what you mean by "matters". A typical laminated core crossover inductor will have considerable core losses at 100kHz. Of course, this doesn't matter for the intended application. In the audio band, the losses are certainly low enough to have no material impact on frequency response.
Speaker crossovers is what "matters".:cool:
I agree, doesn't matter for the intended application and values found in a speaker crossover.:)
Wish me luck keeping it to that!!! ;)
 
Very interesting.
I tend to prefer air cores - simply because if there's nothing there (well, the aether - now rebranded as 'quantum space' and air )- then there will be no nonlinearities. At all.
I rewound some cores for Class D amplifiers on small plastic bobbins are they sounds rather nice too.

What I'd really like is some air-cored speaker drivers, but for that I'd need some precision rectifiers - although maybe active MOSFET ones might be relatively simple to create :)
 
I have some laminated-core inductors. These are from a mass-produced speaker. I have a bobbin-type inductor of similar value, also from a mass-produced speaker. I also have a fancy North Creek air-core inductor from a past speaker project. I will compare the three inductors.
1764031840315.png


They are not exactly the same inductance, but the DCR is very similar. The laminated is 22% higher inductance than the bobbin, but the laminated-core is close to the value of the air-core. The DCR are very similar between the three.
1764031720673.png

The bobbin is very inexpensive to produce. The laminate is much larger and more expensive to make. The air-core is huge and expensive.

I hooked them up in series to make a low-pass filter and measured the response at 0.5 meters, ungated in a room.

As expected, the response of the 0.58 mH inductor is slightly different than the two higher value parts.
1764031974583.png


Here is the THD of the three:
1764032130036.png


The 0.58 mH solid-core inductor has higher distortion than the 0.71 mH laminated core inductor. This has nothing to do with the core type, it has to do with the lower inductance of the 0.58 mH solid core sample. If I had inductors with identical inductance and DCR, this would all be line on line matched.

The 0.71 mH laminate-core inductor and the 0.68 mH air-core inductor are closely matched for distortion. The two samples' measured inductance is close, if inductance was matched the two distortion traces would be line on line. It's already close to measurement repeatability.

In case someone asks about odd order HD:
1764032530600.png


1764032778396.png


The laminated-core inductor has distortion matched to the air-core. The higher distortion of the bobbin inductor is just the higher crossover point. None of these inductor's core types plays a role in distortion in speaker crossovers at reasonable playback levels.
 
It might be helpful to show the distortion as dBr instead of SPL.
Perhaps for this one:
1764038530143.png

But it is better to compare inductors of matched inductance and DCR. Which is why laminated to air-core comparison is better since inductances and DCR are close.
 
Not really, in this case I want to keep track of just how far down all of this is, to prevent navel-gazing.
dBr minimizes just how far down the distortion is compared to the fundamental. I am trying to show how far down all of this inductor hysteresis distortion is in the the band above the filter, where these things are alleged to spit out all of that nasty distortion.
1764046098764.png

Green is matched to orange on either graph. dBr obscures how far down this all is, even if it helps when I don't have inductors of exactly the same value.
 
Last edited:
In my experience laminate steel core is not an issue, even ferriet that has the worst distortion isn't, if you overspecify the current so they never saturate. I never measured it myself (i do not have the right tools or skills for that) but from theory this is clear. But you now how audiophiles like to invent a problem to sell a solution...

The latest passive crossovers that i made all had laminated steel cores in the big inductors (for the woofers) for space and budget reasons. I still use aircores also for smaller values.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MAB
Good thread. I'll note that because you can saturate the core of a ferrous core inductor, it is possible - however unlikely - that they can cause an increase in distortion when pushed to their limits, unlike an air core part. This is more an issue when you start shoving more current through them.

Of course, the easiest solution to solve this problem is to just use active filters that don't need inductors. Anyway...
 
Of course, the easiest solution to solve this problem is to just use active filters that don't need inductors. Anyway...
True but not alway an option in the specific case. But even then passive parts can be better to reduce distortion (mainly hiss from amps) with high sensitive drivers (like compression drivers). So it's still relevant to discuss this.
 
Thank you for the post! Truly valuable and very interesting indeed! I am just wondering if the iron-core inductors could cause any measurable inter-modulated distortion, which may possibly be measurable as a result of iron-core saturation and hysteresis... Do you have any insight and/or data about that? Thanks!
 
The issue is a dearth of test data for power losses of inductor cores used in crossovers. I have been contemplating running some tests on inductors used for audio, but power analyzers are not cheap and I am now retired. I may pickup a used one and get it calibrated.

Long ago, early in my career, I was tasked with figuring out why inductors were overheating in powerline filters running at 60Hz and 400Hz. They used laminated silicon steel C-core inductors with 12 mil. (0.3mm) and 4 mil. (0.1mm) lamination thicknesses, respectively. I ran numerous tests to isolate eddy current power losses from hysterises losses, and from that data derived constants for use in equations to accurately compute the power losses. I don't have a copy of the report I generated as it was considered by the company to be a trade secret. But, I can say this, the inductor core power losses were significantly higher than those previously computed. Specifically, the hysterises losses were much higher than expected. Previous assumptions that thinner laminations reduced eddy current losses, and that power losses increased significantly with frequency, were confirmed to be correct.

In audio, laminated steel inductors commonly are used. The cost effective cores typically used in mass produced speakers have thicker laminations (maybe somewhere around 0.4mm - 1.0mm, depending on the crossover manufacturer) of what I suspect is cold rolled steel. The more expensive ones use thinner laminations of silicon steel, resulting in lower power losses. Air core inductors have no core, and thus don't have any core losses.

At one point when I was in audio engineering, we conducted a blind test comparing inductor cores. There were three of us, and all of us clearly heard an audible difference in the upper midrange. The difference was not subtle with that inductor value in that two-way speaker.

An issue that I commonly see is that people see test results of capacitor comparisons, and just assume that the same results apply to inductors. That is a falacy. Inductor hysterises has a much more significant impact on power losses and time domain response than capacitor equivalent series resistance (ESR) and dielectric absorption (DA).

Another issue I commonly see is that people see a comparison showing a particular result, then assume that result applies to all similar comparisons. That is not always the case. Erin's Audio Corner did a video on that regarding amplifiers.

I spent a good portion of my career designing filters, including designing the inductors and capacitors used in those filters. I am happy to never again use passive filters in my speakers, primarily to avoid use of inductors in my crossovers.
Great feedback! I wonder if you avoid using passive filter in your speaker, do you bi-amp? I suppose you use an active crossover between the pre-amp and power amp. Do you DIY the active crossover? I am an electrical engineer as well and I am interested in what you do for that. Thanks!
 
Great feedback! I wonder if you avoid using passive filter in your speaker, do you bi-amp? I suppose you use an active crossover between the pre-amp and power amp. Do you DIY the active crossover? I am an electrical engineer as well and I am interested in what you do for that. Thanks!
I converted my speakers to be all active. I use a miniDSP HTx Flex for the crossovers, PEQ, time delay adjustments and Dirac Live. I have a 2-channel amplifier powering the woofers, and a single channel amp for each of the midranges and tweeters.

Here is a link to my project. https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-fi-reference-ubr62-bookshelf-speakers.51780/

In short, I took impedance measurements and outside frequency response measurements of the individual drivers, modeled it in VituixCAD, and used that as my starting point. But, initially I only measured the frequency response at 0, 30 and 60 degrees with respect to the horizontal. That was insufficient for the VituixCAD model. I built an automated swivel to do a more complete set of frequency response measurements. I plan on doing that once I get around to mounting it on my ladder, which will be after I finish up some other projects I am working on. I discuss that toward the end of the thread.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom