Why mod Klipsch crossovers?

[Tom Mobley]

I'll take the t-shirt.

[jerohm]

----------------

On 10/1/2004 10:12:44 PM William F. Gil McDermott wrote:

...

Still, I can't see that higher Q crossover components will lead to significantly better results, particularly when used blindly. There. I've insulted everyone. Smile.

Gil

----------------

No, just ALMOST everyone ! While I am most willing (even eager) to believe (and agree) that there may be an audible difference using these higher quality components, whether there is any dramatic improvement is highly subjective. When people resort to the "trained ear" argument, warning flags should immediately be raised... warranted or not! Does a Hovland sound 'better' than an Auricap( the "World's Finest Capacitor" ) or a Sonicap or a stock Klipsch cap? I remember when Klipsch made the "big announcement" about using Monster Cable internal wiring! Did that imply all speakers manufactured prior to the initiative were somehow sonically inferior?

Of course this is ONLY MY opinion, so if you want to take out any of your aggressions, feel free to direct them toward Gil. This is NOT in ANY way to imply that I am NOT impressed by the obvious quality of construction evident in postings of peoples' efforts ... to the contrary, Indeed I AM! It is a shame they sit hidden in a box.

[Deang]

"...whether there is any dramatic improvement is highly subjective."

However, unlike cables/wire, or other similiar type "upgrades" -- everyone "subjectively" agrees that they hear the improvement. I did an RF-7 network changeout in front of a dozen people in Arkansas a while back, and everyone "subjectively" agreed there was an improvement -- even Trey Cannon. There is always complete agreement when the veil is lifted.

Now, the RF-7 does get the resistor tweak, and when I took a network to Indy so Trey could run a trace on it, the plot revealed a 2db decrease at 3.5Khz, and other than than that the traces (between stock and mine) were identical. Trey concluded that it wasn't the "better" parts that accounted for the improvement we heard in Little Rock -- but the mod. It's understandable for him to think that -- no question. However, I originally did my RF-7s without changing the resistor value, and the improvement was still substantial regardless. In fact, after several months I put the stock crossovers back in just to test myself, and didn't make it through half a CD before reinstalling my external boards.

The RF-7 is a great sounding speaker right out of the box -- one of the best sounding speakers I have ever heard. Everyone knows I think that. I literally spent months on this forum beating back the Heritage bigots. It's a great speaker, period. It's like having to wear a condom while having sex with someone you love. There's no denying the sex is great, but let's not kid ourselves here -- it's better without the condom. A tacky analogy maybe, and I apologize -- but it's just what came to mind.

"When people resort to the "trained ear" argument, warning flags should immediately be raised..."

I don't believe I was "resorting" to the trained ear argument. There was a question asking what the trained ear would hear, so I answered it in that context. Critical listeners listen differently than casual listeners. A casual listener will simply say they prefer this sound over that, but can't always articulate why, or know how to describe the differences. A critical listener tends to break things down, and separate the sound out -- focusing on the different sections of the sound, and isolating them for analysis. If the difference relates, and involves sonic quality -- both the causual and critical listener come to the same conclusion: THAT sounds better than THIS.

Now, I do know what you are saying, and really agree with you in the context I think you might have meant. When I read about little sticks that hold the cables off the carpet, or sitting a brick on top of a CD player, or wire -- and the descriptions employed regarding the differences in sound are the same as those used in comparing and describing the differences in sound between speakers and/or gear -- yeah, my BS meter pegs out big time. Are these people completely full of it? Hell, I honestly don't know! Maybe they are just plain better at critical listening then I am. OTOH, I just can't seem to get myself all wound up over miniscule shifts in signature that as far as I'M concerned -- don't add or detract from my enjoyment of the sound.

What DOES detract from my enjoyment of the sound is distraction -- something that sounds out of place, or doesn't belong "in" the music. "Pain" detracts as well, since I'm primarily a high SPL listener (90db and above). I listen to Rock, Metal, and Alternative. The recordings are highly compressed, and are naturally prone to pinning the ears back. My music and listening habits just seem to excite drivers in a way that make you want to duck for cover. Tom Brennan often refers to "earwire", and this is the best description I have ever heard for what I'm talking about. All I can say is that yanking and replacing these parts reduces all of the things that contribute to "earwire". Now, people who listen to Classical and Jazz hear it too, but hear the improvements on the other end of spectrum (low to moderate volumes). I hear less harshness and ringing, they hear less hash and grain. There is simply less of everything "bad", and more of everything "good". It's not like freaking wire, or lifting your cables off of the carpet, or wrapping your CD player in bubble-wrap. Everyone hears it. Everyone. Smoother response, more open, tighter, crisper, etc. You name it (whatever you want to call it).

"Does a Hovland sound 'better' than an Auricap ( the "World's Finest Capacitor" ) or a Sonicap, or a stock Klipsch cap?"

I know it's a rhetorical question, but I want to answer it anyway. It's an important question, and I've spent more time on it than I care to admit. In fact, I'm completely consumed with it. I believe the right answer is both "yes", and "no". There is no question that capacitors made with polypropylene film provide a cleaner sound -- and it doesn't matter if they are metallized or film and foil. The film and foils, regardless of brand (Hovland, RelCap, etc) -- seem to be much closer together in quality and the sound that results from their use than the various metallized types -- which are just all over the map as far as sonic quality goes. They are all better than polyester types, but they are NOT all equal to one another. Measure all you want too, but there isn't anything that accounts for the all the perceived differences.

I've used Solens, Clarity Caps, Auricaps, Kimber Kaps, Dayton's, and RelCap two section metallized types in different speakers, and the differences are readily apparent. The differences are definitely less apparent than comparing cap types -- but they're not hard to hear. If a person were to tell me they could hear no difference between a network built with oval, epoxy coated metallized caps or Solens -- and a network built with Auricaps (or any other thick film metallized type with good lead terminations) -- then I think I would HAVE to think they should take up a different hobby.

[BEC]

I've used Solens, Clarity Caps, Auricaps, Kimber Kaps, Dayton's, and RelCap two section metallized types in different speakers, and the differences are readily apparent. The differences are definitely less apparent than comparing cap types -- but they're not hard to hear. If a person were to tell me they could hear no difference between a network built with oval, epoxy coated metallized caps or Solens -- and a network built with Auricaps (or any other thick film metallized type with good lead terminations) -- then I think I would HAVE to think they should take up a different hobby.

More after I get to work later, but I gotta go now.

----------------

Dean,

If you have any two new 2 uF caps that have the same electrical specs and that you are certain sound different, I would like you to send them to me. I really want to do some instantaneous A B comparisons using my crossover with the switches on two like that.

Bob

[Deang]

"If you have any two new 2 uF caps that have the same electrical specs and that you are certain sound different, I would like you to send them to me. "

Hi Bob,

You mean like 2uF Orange Drops, 2uF Solens, and 2uF Auricaps? The only caps I use in 2uF are the Auricaps and Jensens. The Forte, Chorus, and KLF-20/30 use Mylars -- they get tossed into the trash as soon as I pull them. Reference uses a mix of epoxy coated metallized polypropylenes and Mylars, but the values are not are even remotely close to the Heritage values. You should build up some networks with Solens.

You know the "same electrical specs" thing is impossible anyway. I mean, you could use some various metallized polypropylene 2uF caps that all measured "2uF" -- but ESR, ESL, Q, DA, and DF would not all be exactly the same.

You would run curves, and they would look the same. You might hear a difference, you might not. Heck, you bought Jensen PIOs from me that measured differently than your motor runs -- and neither you nor Mike could hear a difference. Muddying the waters is three customers we share that say there are easily heard differences in sound between your boards and mine. So, now we have things that measure near the same that sound different, and things that measure different that sound the same!?

[steven32]

hey guys im new here but was reading about the crossover mods and very interested in trying that.i have rf5 and yamaha rx-v1 at high vol,it does sound really bright will this mod help that and will i have to do this to the center it is a rc7,i was reading what deanG saying,and he does this mod if so let me know. or can tell me what 2 do.remember im new here so i don't understand about the values of the cap's thank's

[WMcD]

I do wish to add that this should not be a matter of verbal fistfights between Dean and myself. It ain't like that. I'll even forgive the reference to tying shoes. Really, now.

I certainly can take out the crossover. Because I remember my father telling me "righty-tighy, lefty-loosy." Smile.

There is no ill will.

Like Dean described, there are so may tweeks out there that just make no sense at all and you want to get out your BS button.

It is accurate to say that we're not being fair by setting up a hard core position on the effects of different components without listening to actual results. Science is testing. There is an even chance that one or the other of us, or both, will learn a lot. All of these sort of get togethers are fun. I'd like to set up something fairly scientific.

OTOH, I don't know what to do with claims like keeping the wire off the floor, as Dean says. Can it be worth the experiment? Do you have to buy a green magic marker and treat the CD's before rejecting the notion?

= = = =

This just shows I'll really have to fix up the apartment. Must work on the acoustic treatment, etc. It'll take a while.

Best,

Gil

[Deang]

Ha! When you said you weren't about to "tear" apart your speakers, I thought to myself, "it's only a dozen screws!".

I love the scientific aspect of this stuff, but sometimes I just don't know what to think. Bob and Al have both been very patient with me, and I've learned a lot. I'm very grateful to the both of them. I've just had times lately, where I sit in my chair and think, "What in the Hell are we all hearing?"

I just bought some Heresies with ALKs that I can set up in nearfield. Looks like I'll be building up some Type Es -- and playing with lots of caps.

[BEC]

Dean,

The question here would be; What quality of a cap makes it sound different from another cap? (if it does). We know that capacitance can effect the sound. It seems I can tell by listening when the capacitance is somewhere around 10 percent different. It seems I can tell by listening when the ESR is different by somewhat more than 0.5 ohms at 10 khz. Those two qualities will cause most 20 or more year old caps to fail miserably in a listening test and provide ample reason to rebuild your crossovers. If there is something else that can effect the sound of a crossover cap I would like to find it.

This is just another quest for the science for me. I think the double pole double throw switch test I have described before is the perfect way to test this one. Of course it is somewhat difficult on some speakers because you have to find a way to get the switch wires out of the speaker. Easy with Lascalas, Khorns, and all others that have open backs with the crossovers exposed and also most of the ported ones but somewhat harder on the sealed box types. That method is miles ahead of the changing out crossover components and comparing what you are hearing now with what you heard yesterday or even 30 minutes ago. I think in that case most of us hear what we expect to hear.

I guess this forum is not the only place this is discussed. I got an email today telling me of a "blind cap listening test" in Reston, VA. this weekend and in Dayton in two weeks. Just not sure what group it came from. Wish I could attend.

Bob Crites

[jerohm]

My point from the beginning, apparent or not, is to question whether an audible difference is necessarily an improvement? The answer is obviously NO, but when dealing in shades of grey, I honestly think the answer is harder yet to come by. When I am away for a while, and come back and listen to my speakers, I often marvel to myself, just how good they sound. Audio memory is a funny thing ... and very short term ... for me anyway.

[colterphoto1]

Now THERES a man who stands behind his work! Well spoken Dean, I've been thinking about upgrades to my Cornwalls myself. What are the options?

[D-MAN]

Wow, Gil, normally you are very informed - so this is quite a shock!

DM

[Dflip]

For the Cornwalls, you can replace both the 2.0 and 4.0 uF caps with Auricaps, Jensen PIO's or even Hovlands. I even replaced the inductors with 2.4 mHy Solen solid wire versions.

Previously I had a Hovland in the 2.0 position and another less known polyprop in the 4.0 value. It was a very good sound, but a little bright in the upper range, especially with my McIntosh MC-30. I bought a set of Jensen PIO's from Dean and replaced both caps, 2.0 and 4.0 values. Is there a difference, yes and it is quite noticeable. The mids to bottom end do sound a little clearer. At the top end, tweeter, the sound does drop off a bit earlier than with the Hovland. This can be viewed positively or negatively depending on what you want to hear. I found it did stop the ear bleeding and sounds great with female vocalists. It also tames the old BlueNote jazz Cd's which are just too bright on the higher notes. It is a more balanced sound and nothing overpowers me in any one frequency range, which is a good thing. I like the sound, but am interested one day to put the Hovlands back in to see what happens with that combination. Like some other members here, it is the experiment to see what it will sound like to see if I like a different combination better.

Patricia Barber sounds great, especially the vocals after about 20 minutes of warm up. I just sit back and listen to the beautiful music and a seductive vocalist. The 350B's help as well; they were not cheap, but quality never is. Alan Songer has provided me with some great advice on tubes to try and I have been happy with each step along the way. Next will probably be a pair of Mullard CV 4003's if I can come up with the cash.

Sorry, I haven't provided a definitive answer, but this is where my thought process is at the minute. I guess I will have to listen to them for another 100 hours or so before I contemplate if I need to take the next step. Compared to the stock networks, the newer improved parts do make a difference, a difference I would say is for the better.

[Deang]

"My point from the beginning, apparent or not, is to question whether an audible difference is necessarily an improvement? The answer is obviously NO..."

I was looking out my front window today. It's a little dirty. I should clean it, but I really could see everything through the window just fine. Will cleaning the window give me visual improvement? I guess the obvious answer is "NO".

It's O.K., most are in denial until they experience it for themselves.

[mike stehr]

You are going to have skepticism Dean, you know that.

Hell, I know your crossover's are a improvement.

I liked the sound of the Chorus II with my own modded stock network over the stock one for sure.

But that's my opinion.

I gotta figure out the proper size vented cabinet for a Fostex L-475 15", tuned to 35 Hz. Then figure the best frequency center point for the woofer to roll-off to a JBL D208 8" fullrange for midbass/midrange in it's own enclosure. Then a simple LC for a JBL 075 as a helper tweeter.

Once I get the circuit figured out, I'll chase ya down for some caps.

Now you know why I leave the Cornwalls alone.....

[white_shadow]

We are getting OT.

Lets keep it simple.

"If the refs sound as good as everyone says then what is gained by the crossover mod? Also, if the mod does provide a measurable improvement then why hasn't Klipsch implemented the design change?"

The ref's do sound good, just as everyone says they do. Mind you, this is regarding price points and such. Consider the RB5's, which I own. They sound incredible. Especially on a students budget.

But one thing I noticed about my RB5's are the lack of detail. In terms of construction and maybe outsourced components. One of which is the crossover, seemingly a hand-me-down from another line of the "ref" or the RB3's. Somehow that dangling extra set of woofer outputs from the crossover in my RB5's threw me off. Wait my RB5's don't have two woofers!

On a side note these extra outputs were just sitting there. They were not fastened, zip-tied, or whatever. Just hanging out.

The point is crossovers are looked over in many speaker manufacturers, Klipsch being one of them. Decent crossovers are expensive, luckily Klipsch gives you good drivers to work with.

[Deang]

RB-5? Lack of detail?? Dude, something's wrong -- because that speaker has detail in spades.

Did you call Technical Support and ask about the extra lead outs? Mistakes do happen. All of the boards I have seen, regardless of model -- have the model of speaker clearly stamped/written on the boards, along with the part number.

Mike, see if there is anything below that can help you.

http://www.carstereo.com/help2/Articles.cfm?Car_Audio=Subwoofer%20Box%20Volume%20Calculator%20and%20Speaker%20Box%20Design

You'll need a data sheet on that driver to get the alignment right. You could call Fostex direct -- you might get lucky: 562.921.1112

[jerohm]

----------------

On 10/6/2004 10:47:45 PM DeanG wrote:

I was looking out my front window today. It's a little dirty. I should clean it, but I really could see everything through the window just fine. Will cleaning the window give me visual improvement?

----------------

So the right solution is to replace the glass ! Look; first off, I am just pulling your chain a bit... don't take any of the stuff I say to heart.

A couple of years ago, Rotel put out two pieces of equipment, the RSP-1066 a 'separate' AV-preamp/processor and the RSX-1055 AV-Receiver (which was actually cheaper). It soon became the general consensus that the DSP sections of each were virtually indistinguishable. Rotel retorted that the RSP-1066 used higher quality components! Kind of makes me, and should make everybody else, AT LEAST question the balance of 'good enough' components vs. design.

Take the current state of lossy digital audio compression techniques. Even the best of breed can be detected when directly A/B'd to the uncompressed PCM source. Without direct comparison however, few soles are consistently able to distinguish between the two (or maybe even care - its lossy - read:inferior - isn't it?).

When trying to audibly compare between different, best of breed, lossy techniques though, it is a far more daunting task... Test instruments don't tell the whole story - they can't figure in how the brain interprets sound or what may exist as personal preference (or heaven forbid, bias).

My Conclusions... )

Unless a person has gone though the efforts of setting up direct A/B testing, it impossible (or at least disingenuous) for them to make 'night and day' proclamations and testimonials - audio memory is just too short term. I am sure you (as well as other) have gone though the painstaking efforts and have convinced yourself of the benefits. But like test equipment, it doesn't always tell the whole story

(Punchline: I still bought the 1066)

[Frzninvt]

A/B testing was NOT necessary I know the sonic signature well enough to know that there was an immediate improvement for the better. Whether or not it can be measured, I don't know but it was certainly audible for me. I have my brother in law's '61 Cornwalls that have the identical drivers and crossover that my 62's have. So I could do a direct comparison, the '61's seemed to have a little more output in the mid and high range than the updated 62's but the 62's were much smoother sounding and free of hash and grain that was evident in the 61's. Was it $300+ worth of improvement, maybe not but I sure like it better now that the response is smoothed out. The networks in there were 42 years old and to think after that period of time they would still meet factory specifications seems like one would be expecting too much.

What gets me is how someone that has not done these mods/updates can run his gums relentlessly without having any direct experience relevant to the discussions at hand. Shut the hell up!

[Ray Garrison]

Dean -

you have a pm.