glens

So, like Dean says, distinct layers of foil and film are preferred over "metalized" film (like for candy bar wrappers).

That would make sense if inductance drops appreciably under load so there's more than needed when lightly loaded. I'd like to see some documentation on that one. My initial thought is that inductance would only drop upon saturation. It could be argued to merely use devices more appropriate to the task at hand... I've seen recommendation to add an ohm or two in series to muddy-up the bass a bit. Am thinking it was in relation to SETs, but not sure; except am pretty sure it was when using an output transformer at least (i.e. a tube amp).

Oh. Yes, I concur wholeheartedly! I rather doubt he'd venture this way on my recommendation...

You talking to me? I don't know who Jeff is, at least not as "Jeff."

RIP?

Ha ha, I saw "ME" and thought "multiple entry" so followed the link... They truly are beautiful specimens!

I was just looking at a couple of things at the main site and it dawned on me that there are prices on the items which you can "add to cart" and that on the items without prices there's no option to "add to cart". My take on this is that they're not selling some things factory direct any longer, for whatever reason. I'm not conversant enough with their general product line to know whether the items yet "buyable" have undergone a recent price increase or not. The main thing is that if you want to buy LaScalas, for example, you just can't do it through the website any longer - hence no prices for them on the website.

Really, either combo would be just great. The difference between 150 Watts and 300 Watts will hardly be detectable by ear, so I'd just go with the 150; it'll be plenty and you can put $1000 toward a lot of music to play through the system. I'm using their little brother, the 338. You'd be satisfied with either setup, and if not, you probably can't be satisfied.

There's a "Pilgrimage 2018 Photos" thread, but I guess that's not what I was thinking of. I can't find it either, but I know I saw photos or even a video somewhere sometime. Sorry. wait... this was it, I think

Bypass caps on power supplies (a necessity oftentimes) is a completely different purpose and subject, where small signals can be adversely affected causing larger problems downstream. Here we're discussing large signals at the "bay". In this instance, a multiple of miniscule values were brought forward to address various (generally) specific audio regions. Quite a horse of a different color.

Okay, so you didn't read it. Stating that is much better than doing it yet then claiming it contained irreverence and unfairness nonetheless. Once again, though, there was no theory nor EE talk. Just plain facts. If you can't refute them, fine. If you don't want to, fine. It simply indicates to me that you can't possibly be obtaining results you claim. I'm not passing judgement on what you think you're hearing or on you personally, but it certainly appears that we mutually have little use for what each other have to say about this topic. It's been nice to have met you, and I wish you well in your endeavors.

Perhaps his wife is selling off his stock (rather more giving it away) in a vengeful capacity or something while he's unable to do anything to stop her ...

Are the stock crossovers in an RF7 III in need of an upgrade? I've seen pictures here on this site, I think it was from the most recent "Pilgramage" thread, of RF7 III boxes being built. I'm pretty sure of that at any rate.

I was referring specifically to this post on page 8, yesterday. I challenge you to point out one instance of either irreverence or unfairness within that post. Assuming you're referring to that post, do you feel I treated you unfairly by pointing out that (for a high-level crossover) the most usable of the three capacitor values you'd specified has an effective resistance to AC of 10 ohms but only drops that low at above the range of useful audio spectrum? If the tweeter were 10 ohms that would represent the crossover point (sharing the signal half each between the capacitor and driver) if used as a first-order filter. As I recall it was 23 kHz at which this occurred. Can you explain how adding such a capacitor value to a bundle can possibly improve (raise?) response in the "midbass to midrange transition"? At 1 kHz a 0.68 uF capacitor (the one in question, I just looked) exhibits a resistance to AC of roughly 250 ohms! How is adding this to the high-level crossover circuit going to improve a deficiency there? How could it even possibly do so? I'll give you some help with that. If the resistive value of the the capacitor(s) were already 8 ohms at that frequency (~20 uF), then paralleling an additional 0.68 uF capacitor would cause it to drop to 7.75 ohms at that frequency. This drops the "8 ohm" frequency of that new bundle from 1000 Hz to 967 Hz. All it's doing is lowering the crossover point (in terms of the capacitance, at any rate) 33 Hz. Okay, so doing that might cause an in increased overlap of the two drivers concerned and that might "fix" a deficiency in that audio range (if that's "mid bass to midrange"). How about a 0.068 uF cap added to the same location to address a deficiency in "the lower treble range"? (Both as you'd specified.) All that does is drop the frequency where the bundle represents "8 ohms" to 964 Hz, an "additional" 3 Hz lower. I don't know specifically what you mean by "lower treble range" but 0.068 uF exhibits a resistive value of 1 kohm at ~2500 Hz. At 5 kHz it'd be ~400 ohms. How much signal at those frequencies is getting through that capacitor to the driver to help with a deficiency? Sure, adding a parallel resistor to a series resistive element decreases the overall value of series resistance present, but that would tend to increase the voltage getting through at all frequencies where the resistance is lower, not just some select segment of the frequencies. The capacitor values you gave to cover the ranges you mentioned might be much more appropriate with the impedance levels inside an amplifier than in a high-level crossover feeding the speaker. There were neither graphs nor theories presented in that post. Mostly plain facts, plus some expressed opinion formed from the finding of those facts. I suggest you (re-?)read it. Some of the material has been re-iterated and expounded-upon in this post.

 Not to all, but that is to be expected.  But you've got nothing to say about the time I spent making a spreadsheet and reporting my findings... Don't you like it when a doggy tugs on the curtain you're behind?

Okay, I've had enough unless some compelling direct question gets asked or a specific response is required. I'd thought this thread would be as much fun as the recent ongoing one in "General" but that's decidedly not the case. The other one is fun, this one's just bizarre. (Post was in progress before the preceding showed up, so that's not the reason. The reason came before, but has not been modified by the preceding.)

Maybe because they're using relatively-low-voltage signals over thousands of feet on tiny-gauge wire, ya think?

I would say "center of inner lug radius to center of inner lug radius". But that discounts internal wiring of both the amp and speaker... hahaha! If you're going that route, you've got to be sure the lengths are all within +/- .005 (inclusive) or you're wasting your time.

There's your culprit. Does it feel like something's rubbing when you attempt to move the cone?

Make that 4: plain old wiring/connection issues, which you may inadvertently clear up doing the swap, or by deliberately going through everything wire/connection-wise as a first step. While unlikely that both woofers, if each in perfect operational condition otherwise, exhibit the exact same characteristics, I'd think they should be close enough even for someone like me. But that's easy to say from this distance!

Yeah, 'cause what's good for 60 kHz has got to be ten times better for 6! FYI that's radio territory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WWVB Evidently the wavelength of 60 kHz is 196714.211 inches. That divided by 3443.5 nets 57.126, so there you go!

Before I spent any money I'd be swapping either the crossovers or woofers between cabinets, whichever's easier, to see whether the problem stays or migrates.

I've got one of the Sony right in the middle with the slant front. You can flip it around in the box and use it (mostly) horizontal as well. I have no idea if it'll even power up - it's been almost 30 years now since I've used it for anything. Not an especially high-end unit...

I think that switches like that typically provide alternate internal configurations so the amplifier can better handle situations that bring it "closer to the edge." It most certainly won't hurt to give both settings a whirl. If you notice any difference and prefer one way over the other then you've got your answer.

I concur that this is going nowhere, but I just wanted to both follow up on an idea expressed in an earlier post and to state for the record that I know what "Mil-Spec" means. Regarding the latter, the point I was getting at earlier was that although military specifications are usually quite good, the things they're specifying do not necessarily represent the cream of the crop, and I'd be surprised if NASA, for example, doesn't go beyond them with their own specifications in several areas (like wiring/terminations). Regarding the "follow-up," I whipped up a spreadsheet to determine the reactance of each individual capacitor in various combinations (1C; C/2 + C/2; and C/2 + C/3 + C/6) at half-octave steps throughout the audio band. I had the spreadsheet use the individual reactances mathematically combined into voltage-dividing networks and figure the voltage drop against an 8 ohm load at each of the frequencies. The result is that the three curves corresponded exactly, as opposed to my earlier thinking-out-loud that they may not. So it seems as though if one could obtain two capacitors of half-needed-value with the same (or lower!) ESR each than that of the appropriate single capacitor, advantage may well be gained by using the two paralleled instead of the single unit. (Any inductive part of the ESR would be improved upon for the same reason as the resistive part.) Or in combining several to arrive at a more correct value for the purpose at hand. (Heck, maybe even precisely combining value-wise different types for their perceived audio qualities.) That scenario may well be a more worthwhile rabbit to chase than precision lengths of exotic wire, as one example. I was a bit surprised by the results but admit I'd never given it any thought before this thread started to run its course, so at least no long-held beliefs have been undermined. Whew! Mr. Medwin, each time you simply add another capacitor to the bundle to address some perceived "hole or depression" somewhere in the audio band (which is indeed what you said there), all you're doing is lowering the crossover point in terms of what effect that "C" position is supposed to be doing. Since you're not doing anything with the associated inductor (I'm assuming by what I can see from your photos that it's a 2-pole crossover) to match the change in capacitance, I doubt the lowering of the crossover frequency is being effected as smoothly as it could. I may be mistaken about what you'd said. Perhaps you're taking some care to maintain the overall amount of capacitance. But the present quote sure doesn't sound like that's the case. In fact, let's look at your given examples. 0.68 uF has a reactance of 10k ohms at 22 Hz decreasing to 10 ohms at 23 kHz. 0.22 uF is 32k ohms and 31 ohms at those two frequencies. And for 0.068 uF the values range from 100k ohms at 22 Hz to 100 ohms at 23 kHz. I don't have an inkling which frequencies correspond to the three areas you mention so cannot even begin to offer what might be a ballpark reactance for any of those capacitor values there. Nonetheless, I don't see how it's possible you're getting improvements for "suckouts" or 'holes" anywhere by adding those caps to your crossover high-pass "C" bundle. All than can be happening is an overall lowering of capacitive reactance at that "C position." You remind me in some respects of one of my brothers. He's known for coming up with some real oddball ideas, like the time he considered putting up a wind-powered generator and gearing it up (overdriving it) to produce even more power from the same amount of wind (and selling the excess back to the power company). I tried to explain to him that it just doesn't work that way, but, oh well. He's my brother and I love him anyway. Thankfully he never followed up on the idea. Oh, you don't have to answer, but I wonder whether 57 1/8 includes or excludes the wiring from the output transformers and inside the speaker cabinets.