"Stevie Boy" wrote in message
...

Firstly, the alleged defects of electrolytic caps are overstated. However
they
do inherently tend to have a very broad tolerance which will mean that
one
crossover will not match the next very accurately and so on. That alone
might be
a good reason to replace them with 5% tolerance plastic film caps.

I can see your argument here & therefore I should theoretically hear a
difference if I swapped the crossovers over & just listened to 1 SBL.

As for Mundorf and the like, these are no better than a snake-oil
'Monster'
version of 'ordinary' caps. There is no measurable difference between
them and
any other competently manufactured cap using the same dielectric. And no,
esoteric dielectrics don't sound any better either.

Therefore by your consensus different dielectrics do sound different
because they measure differently.

All of this stuff is
superficial snake oil. Any polyester film cap will be just fine but do
get the
5% tolerance type, not 10% or 20%.

The tighter tolerance the better. Is it worth going even tighter if that
is possible?
Also I've seen some designs to use brass cores over the capacitors to
lower the Q is this useful?

It is true that ferrite and iron cored inductors will cause some small
distortion at higher power levels but replacing them with air-cored types
(which
are free of this effect) is very likely to increase the DC resistance of
the
coil and this will potentially have an adverse effect on the crossover
oepration.


Yes I'm aware but say 1.5mm cross section of copper wire of well lets say
a few extra feet is not gonna measure a huge amount of resistance I would
of thought, less than 0.5 ohm?

Please define the actual meaning of the words "soundstaging, imaging,
depth,
neutrality, greater bass weight, dynamics & so on ".

I surely do not need to explain such words as dynamic range or depth.

Maybe not dynamic range, but what is "depth" in the context of audio?


Neutrality: Where a sound is reproduced as accurately as possible without
emphasis of any frequency.
In other words as life like as possible.

The two statements are not synonymous. Lack of emphasis of any frequency
means a flat frequency response, with no sharp peaks or troughs, especially
peaks. "As life like as possible" implies not only a flat response, but also
low distortion and accurate dispersion characteristics which, when the room
acoustics are included, result in an accurate representation of the recorded
event. The closest approach to the original sound anyone?


Bass weight: A stronger representation of the lows as if it were a larger
speaker.

How does this differ from extention?


Imaging: placing voices & instruments at a point in space.

Soundstaging: How a performance fills the room, does the sound feel it is
in the room (if so does it fill the whole room or sound as if it is
confined to within the speaker listening positions), confined towards the
speakers or eminating from the speakers!

This is primarily a function of the room, together with the dispersion
characteristics of the loudspeakers.



You could do worse than read my post in the thread "What a sad excuse
for a group this is..." about this matter along with the replies. I can
assure
you that a change in component is not going to suddenly made the stereo
image
suddenly leap out at you.

I shall read....

Well worth it.


Bear in mind that component substitution in a filter network is likely to
cause
at least some subtle change in frequency response because of tolerance
issues
with the components unless you measure the original part and fit
*exacrtly* the
same value. This subtle difference is typically erroneously interpreted
as
'better' by the audiophool who has no understanding of the underlying
science.
Simply a change in the sound will convince him he did the right thing.
Any
change in the sound will assure him of that.

I would add that passive loudspeaker crossovers are only as good as the
tolerance of the crossover components and the tolerance of the drive units
used. Some manufacturers will grade their drive units and crossovers and
match them such that the results are uniform across production. Some
manufacturers may tolerance their components tightly such that any
combination can be used succesfully. I don't know which NAIM would have used
in the SBL, or indeed whether they just relied on normal commercial
tolerances.

This I understand, speakers can sound radically different if fed the wrong
frequency range, from awful to really good.... I've experienced this. A
change in sound does not by any means mean better. Unless your speakers
are revealing more of the source then change is not better.

If you really want to listen to good speakers, you should be considering
bi-amplification with accurate electronic filters. This is the ONLY way
to deal
intelligently with 'crossover issue' imperfections..


I would of thought so as any passive component put in an amplifiers way to
control a speaker can only reduce it's success to control it. However I
already think my speakers are good! I don't want to spend shed loads on
active crossovers I just wanted to improve them if I could at a minimal
cost. If this could bring me closer to active crossover heaven then great!

I doubt it. Active crossovers, especially DSP derived, are the best way of
achieving accurate results. (or screwing things up royally!)


Finally, when these crossovers were designed they did not have the benefit
of todays computer modelling software, would a more accurate design
benefit them in a large way?

Steve

No, I don't think so unless you can measure the actual performance of each
drive unit individually, then design the crossover accordingly. If you're
going to that sort of effort, an active crossover would be a lot less
trouble.

S.


--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com