Over the last few weeks I've kinda got a speaker bug as I've been thinking
about 5.1 systems.
I came across a few sites regarding improvements to SBL/SL2/DBL/IBL range of
crossovers as they are all more or less identical.

As it now looks that I may be using my SBL's to part accomadate home theatre
along with my standard Hi-Fi, I've been chewing on the claims made of
improved sound performance through substituting better components within the
crossover.

I'd like to know on a cost basis if this really is a useful step upwards for
the speakers (rather than spending money elsewhere) & pick peoples brains of
useful tips on the subject.
If anyone has had direct experience to I'm all ears

Steve

Stevie Boy wrote:

Over the last few weeks I've kinda got a speaker bug as I've been thinking
about 5.1 systems.
I came across a few sites regarding improvements to SBL/SL2/DBL/IBL range of
crossovers as they are all more or less identical.

As it now looks that I may be using my SBL's to part accomadate home theatre
along with my standard Hi-Fi, I've been chewing on the claims made of
improved sound performance through substituting better components within the
crossover.

I'd like to know on a cost basis if this really is a useful step upwards for
the speakers (rather than spending money elsewhere) & pick peoples brains of
useful tips on the subject.
If anyone has had direct experience to I'm all ears

The components in any decent crossover are probably perfectly up to the
requirements for the job. What kind of substitution did you have in mind and
what improvements were you anticipating ?

Graham

The components in any decent crossover are probably perfectly up to the
requirements for the job. What kind of substitution did you have in mind
and
what improvements were you anticipating ?

Graham

-----------

I had nothing in mind but I've heard people replacing the electrolytic
alcaps & iron core inductors for the likes of Wilmslow audio super caps or
mundorf silver/oil caps & air core inductors from the likes of Jenson for
example. I don't know what to expect improvement wise as I've not
experienced how these components differ in sound & electrical
characteristics from the stock crossover items used. Claims are made for
better soundstaging, imaging, depth, neutrality, greater bass weight,
dynamics & so on. Basically quite a lot!

I would not say I am unhappy with my SBL's as they are but if I can get more
out of them for a nominal cost in comparison to thier price or using an
active set-up I would be more than willing to give it a try. After all no
loudspeaker comes near to perfection.

Stevie Boy wrote:

The components in any decent crossover are probably perfectly up to the
requirements for the job. What kind of substitution did you have in mind
and what improvements were you anticipating ?


-----------

I had nothing in mind but I've heard people replacing the electrolytic
alcaps & iron core inductors for the likes of Wilmslow audio super caps or
mundorf silver/oil caps & air core inductors from the likes of Jenson for
example.

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.

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. 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%.

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.


I don't know what to expect improvement wise as I've not
experienced how these components differ in sound & electrical
characteristics from the stock crossover items used. Claims are made for
better soundstaging, imaging, depth, neutrality, greater bass weight,
dynamics & so on. Basically quite a lot!

Please define the actual meaning of the words "soundstaging, imaging, depth,
neutrality, greater bass weight, dynamics & so on ". These are all made up
nonsense concepts invented by reviewers who would be out of a job if they had to
be honest. 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 would not say I am unhappy with my SBL's as they are but if I can get more
out of them for a nominal cost in comparison to thier price or using an
active set-up I would be more than willing to give it a try. After all no
loudspeaker comes near to perfection.

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.

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..

Graham

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.

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

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

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!


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....

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.

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!

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

"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

"Stevie Boy" wrote in message
...
Over the last few weeks I've kinda got a speaker bug as I've been thinking
about 5.1 systems.
I came across a few sites regarding improvements to SBL/SL2/DBL/IBL range
of crossovers as they are all more or less identical.

As it now looks that I may be using my SBL's to part accomadate home
theatre along with my standard Hi-Fi, I've been chewing on the claims made
of improved sound performance through substituting better components
within the crossover.

I'd like to know on a cost basis if this really is a useful step upwards
for the speakers (rather than spending money elsewhere) & pick peoples
brains of useful tips on the subject.
If anyone has had direct experience to I'm all ears



**I am unfamiliar with the speakers you mention. However, my experience with
various types of speakers tells me this:

* Electrolytic caps should be replaced. Bipolar electros have a relatively
short life and rather poor characteristics. A caveat, however: Some
manufacturers take the flaws of electros into account and design their
speakers accordingly. Simply replacing electros with film type caps may lead
to other problems.
* Ferrite core inductors are (generally) to be avoided. A suitable air core
inductor will almost always lead to improvements. A further caveat: Ferrite
core inductors can be made small and with low resistance at low cost.
Additionally, leakage flux is less of an issue. If replacing a ferrite
inductor with an air core type, ensure the resistance is the same as the
ferrite one and that it is suitably oriented such that leakage flux does not
interfere with other inductors.
[Anecdote]: A client sent me a sample speaker he was importing from the US
(major, high quality manufacturer), complaining that it didn't sound as good
as expected. After running tests, I noted that the ferrite core inductor was
saturating at a level of 10 Volts RMS @ 50Hz. Replacing the ferrite
inductors with air core types solved the problem. This was, admittedly, a
rare fault, but indicative of what can occur.
* Laminated iron core inductors are much better than ferrite core inductors.
They do not have a 'square law' hysteresis curve and thus do not saturate
nastily. Personally, I would probably not bother replacing laminated iron
core inductors with air core types.
* Solder all connections.
* Cover all internal surfaces with a suitable damping material. I rather
like Bostik Sound Deadening panels. These are used in automotive
applications and are quite reasonably priced.

Trevor Wilson

* Laminated iron core inductors are much better than ferrite core
inductors.

Actually it turns out they are ferrite cores.

* Solder all connections.

It's built on a copper track PCB.

* Cover all internal surfaces with a suitable damping material. I rather
like Bostik Sound Deadening panels.

Are you talking about the cabinets themselves? The crossovers are externally
mounted.

Steve

"Stevie Boy" wrote in message
...

* Laminated iron core inductors are much better than ferrite core
inductors.

Actually it turns out they are ferrite cores.

**If you replace them, ensure the resistance of the replacement coil is
identical. I am not well pleased with ferrite core inductors.


* Solder all connections.

It's built on a copper track PCB.

**ALL Connections. That includes connections to the drivers.


* Cover all internal surfaces with a suitable damping material. I rather
like Bostik Sound Deadening panels.

Are you talking about the cabinets themselves?

**Of course.

The crossovers are externally
mounted.

**Your point being?

Trevor Wilson

**ALL Connections. That includes connections to the drivers.


Easier said than done as the driver cabinets are extremely difficult to get
into as the drive units use a sealant to ensure a air tight fit.

* Cover all internal surfaces with a suitable damping material. I rather
like Bostik Sound Deadening panels.

Hmm I'm not saying this is a bad idea as I've used sound deading panels &
materials in car door panels before with great effect (car doors arn't
exactly rigid affairs) but the SBL's use some rather unique tuning devices
(not sure what they are made of) that are adhered to the inside of the
enclosures. I know this as I saw an internal unit at thier launch. It's also
a one of treatment, like it or hate it once it's done.

The crossovers are externally
mounted.

**Your point being?

My point was to merely mention where they were as I was not sure in your
post what you were refering to in damping.