Infinitesimal II (v.2) Crossover; The Original And A Revision?

buzshaws

Active Member
Member Kahoona did a nice thread on his .2's that he restored. At the end of that thread I had a question about his crossover circuit and how it differed from the Infinity schematic, which is the same my v.2 crossover circuit is based on. I have seen several crossovers like Kahoona's, probably more than the layout in the schematic, which is really interesting but also begs a question as to the reason for the changes. Here's Kahoona's thread, with a link at the end to the PDF schematic:

http://audiokarma.org/forums/index.php?threads/infinitesimal-nudies-and-question.546437/

After I made a post in that thread about the crossover differences, it seemed it would be better served in its own thread so I started this one so the topics remained independent. I'm revisiting this issue because I'm still at an impasse as to what's going on. My Infinitesimal II crossovers were modded when I received them. Film caps had been replaced with a Mundorf Supreme and the resistors changed from the original sand cast units to Eagle resistors. Lytic caps were replaced with Bennics. Not crazy about the choices I decided to get Deulund graphite resistors and Mundorf MCaps to replace the "replaced" ones still and waiting to install them until I get another 5-way binding post. Original owner did that already too but I'm not crazy about the ones he'd chosen. If the original stock components are going to be upgraded in any way then I prefer to put in the ones of my choice.

Now back to my original quandary. Kahoona's crossover is different than my initial pair, which correspond with the widely available schematic linked to in the above post. Unlike Kahoona's version, it illustrates two 5 watt 1.4 ohm resistors and a .2mH coil in the tweeter circuit, but Kahoona has two 2.7 ohm resistors @ 5 watts and no coil. I'm sure his was all original and stock when he did his restoration/upgrade. This is reinforced because I just got a "new" pair of Infinitesimal II's and this pair's crossovers are just like Kahoona's version. Everything is stock and they came in the clear poly bags inside the box. They could almost pass as NOS and likely never opened up until now (the enclosure that is). Truly remarkable but that's another story. The reason I bought them is I wanted a pure stock pair that had been untampered with so I could have a reference to experience and therefore understand what an original pair is supposed to sounded, then any changes or upgrading of components has a baseline for relevence. I'm perplexed at the differences in the two production crossovers and the Infinity schematic being the only document available regarding the v.02. Those are pretty significant differences and surely will affect the sound. If Infinity made such a revision, and clearly they did by evidence of the schematic and my two v.02 samples, which is the most recent? I'm of the opinion the resistor value changes to 1.4ohm and added the HF coil came later, as it would only be implemented if thought beneficial, as it indeed increases the cost. A manufacturer doesn't do that just for fun, especially when such a change is inside a box that no one sees. I don't plan on changing my recent ones in any way because they are perfect and sonically represent what an original pair were when new, but my other previous pair is based on the schematic and I have the components to upgrade them already, so they're free to put the modern components in. Any feedback is just for enlightenment because others that may want to change electrolytics and the film caps, as many want to do, may wish to take note that what they see in their crossovers indeed differ from the said schematic and there will be a choice whether to change similar for similar or base the choices on the schematic. I can't help but think if one wants to follow the schematic that in addition to adding the .2mH coil, the resistor value change should be considered part of that revision too.
 
Last edited:
I had a tech restore my Infinitesimals last year and after going thru the Infinity schematics, he told me that my speakers had elements of the .1's and .2's. He said they were probably a production model that was manufactured late in the.1 cycle, but before the .2's went into production. During the rebuild, he asked me about the coil, since it wasn't in my speakers, but was in the schematics. I asked him if it would make a difference and he told me that in his opinion, it would smooth out the sound and make the speakers more clear sounding. I had him put in the coils and all the new components as per the .2 schematics from Infinity. I had these for several months before the rebuilding and can say that they sound better, especially in the clarity of the highs. The lows are better as well, but it's not as pronounced as the highs.

They sounded good before the rebuilding, but I did notice that one of the tweeters always seemed louder that the other, and the clarity seemed better in the louder one as well. I do have some pictures at my home computer and will try to post them tomorrow.
 
A couple of things that I thought I would add to this thread. You will notice that the litz coil placement is different in the two pictures. The reason for this was that in the original vertical placement, the woofer would come into contact with the coil, so my tech changed it to a horizontal placement on the crossover board.

I'm not a tech guy. That's why I hire experts to do this type of work, but I was wondering about that litz coil in the Infinity .2 schematics. At the time, my tech told me that it was possible that the .2 designers wanted it that way, but the company bean counters didn't want to spend that extra money, when they could get a working speaker without the added costs. The coil may have been removed for cost cutting reasons.
 
There is a shot of my 2.0 crossover (which I believe is OEM) in this thread, might help, might not.
http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/index.php?threads/help-please-crossover-question.739429/
Don't have a picture of the other side of the board.

Thanks goodolpg, yours is like my more recent pair.

I'm not a tech guy. That's why I hire experts to do this type of work, but I was wondering about that litz coil in the Infinity .2 schematics. At the time, my tech told me that it was possible that the .2 designers wanted it that way, but the company bean counters didn't want to spend that extra money, when they could get a working speaker without the added costs. The coil may have been removed for cost cutting reasons.

Interesting angle. I had it in mind perhaps it was the other way around. Since v.1 didn't have it, it started out with being like my more recent ones, goodolpg's, and Kahoona's and that the schematic we have is a revision version because it may have become necessary to tweak the new circuit to perform best after the fact. The v.1 is a 6dB crossover and v.2 is a 12dB crossover. I was just thinking the revision actually added the coil but your tech's theory is as logical an explanation. Clearly the bean counters were pleased with v.3, where the Watkins woofer and coil was removed, as well as back to plastic end caps and now the exterior of the enclosure as well. In v.1 the end caps under the oak we're removeable and were also plastic whereas v.2 was solid cast everywhere except the removable front. It seems logical this makes for better seal integrity and stronger overall structure. Though I haven't actually haven't heard a v.1, I prefer v.2 overall as it seems to incorporate a better enclosure and the crossover was changed, which added cost. Doesn't make sense to add to the cost in a hidden place unless it was proven in-house to perform better. You can bet the bean counters needed convincing to allow that!

Not sure what kind of seals the v.1 had on the top and bottom caps but on v.2 there's a rubber o-ring recessed around the edge where the front baffle meets the enclosure. After opening mine I used rubber conditioner before resealing it. Seemed prudent and will hopefully extend its life. Would hate to have to find a replacement for that.

I have another question about your x-over upgrade Manuel64 but will have to wait until I can post again as I'm on my phone and have to go. Very nice job though, the pics are most appreciated!
 
Last edited:
Thanks goodolpg, yours is like my more recent pair.



Interesting angle. I had it in mind perhaps it was the other way around. Since v.1 didn't have it, it started out with being like my more recent ones, goodolpg's, and Kahoona's and that the schematic we have is a revision version because it may have become necessary to tweak the new circuit to perform best after the fact. The v.1 is a 6dB crossover and v.2 is a 12dB crossover. I was just thinking the revision actually added the coil but your tech's theory is as logical an explanation. Clearly the bean counters were pleased with v.3, where the Watkins woofer and coil was removed, as well as back to plastic end caps and now the exterior of the enclosure as well. In v.1 the end caps under the oak we're removeable and were also plastic whereas v.2 was solid cast everywhere except the removable front. It seems logical this makes for better seal integrity and stronger overall structure. Though I haven't actually haven't heard a v.1, I prefer v.2 overall as it seems to incorporate a better enclosure and the crossover was changed, which added cost. Doesn't make sense to add to the cost in a hidden place unless it was proven in-house to perform better. You can bet the bean counters needed convincing to allow that!

Not sure what kind of seals the v.1 had on the top and bottom caps but on v.2 there's a rubber o-ring recessed around the edge where the front baffle meets the enclosure. After opening mine I used rubber conditioner before resealing it. Seemed prudent and will hopefully extend its life. Would hate to have to find a replacement for that.

I have another question about your x-over upgrade Manuel64 but will have to wait until I can post again as I'm on my phone and have to go. Very nice job though, the pics are most appreciated!

Thanks. The tech I use is a true master. He spends a great deal of time researching the equipment that he works on, and is well known to audiophiles in my area as the best around. He is not cheap, but when you want something done right, he is worth the expense. It's funny, but when I talk to him, it's like listening to another language. He speaks in technical terms and sometimes I have trouble understanding stuff, as I myself know little about how electronics actually work. I may be able to answer your question, but it may be beyond my knowledge. I only know some stuff that my tech told me in my limited layman's terms. Apart from the work putting in new and better components, he also changed out all of the old wiring in the speakers to a higher quality wire. The Watkins woofers are the clear ones that the .2's use.

I use these little speakers in a den, that I use as a video game room. They get rotated with some other small to medium sized speakers there. I also love how portable they are and have bought them to my office from time to time as well. In my opinion, there simply isn't a better small speaker for a small room. The clarity of the highs and lows, simply can't be matched in a speaker of this size.
 
Last edited:
Thanks goodolpg, yours is like my more recent pair.



Interesting angle. I had it in mind perhaps it was the other way around. Since v.1 didn't have it, it started out with being like my more recent ones, goodolpg's, and Kahoona's and that the schematic we have is a revision version because it may have become necessary to tweak the new circuit to perform best after the fact. The v.1 is a 6dB crossover and v.2 is a 12dB crossover. I was just thinking the revision actually added the coil but your tech's theory is as logical an explanation. Clearly the bean counters were pleased with v.3, where the Watkins woofer and coil was removed, as well as back to plastic end caps and now the exterior of the enclosure as well. In v.1 the end caps under the oak we're removeable and were also plastic whereas v.2 was solid cast everywhere except the removable front. It seems logical this makes for better seal integrity and stronger overall structure. Though I haven't actually haven't heard a v.1, I prefer v.2 overall as it seems to incorporate a better enclosure and the crossover was changed, which added cost. Doesn't make sense to add to the cost in a hidden place unless it was proven in-house to perform better. You can bet the bean counters needed convincing to allow that!

The 0.3 use the same incloser as the 0.2. It seems to be an aluminum industrial electric box repurposed. It has two main pieces, the front which is sealed and the box. The 0.3 plastic caps are screwed on from inside. I have the 0.3 along with the 0.1 to compare. It is a fine speaker too. If someone switched them out one for the other I doubt I would noticed.
 
Back
Top Bottom