Rick's re-capped AA loaners

[MarkBK]

Time for that audiogram Jeff.

Why not just load the new networks in, pick a CD that you know really well and like, and just relax and listen to the music. When the CD is finished put the old networks back in. You're comparing two networks of the same type with different parts, so the difference isn't as dramatic as going to a different type network -- but there will be a difference and it should be clearly audible. BTW, bringing a speaker back to spec is not a "tweak"!

Bob,

"Because MP3 is a lossy format, it is able to provide a number of different options for its "bit rate"that is, the number of bits of encoded data that are used to represent each second of audio. Typically rates chosen are between 128 and 256 kilobit per second. By contrast, uncompressed audio as stored on a compact disc has a bit rate of about 1400 kbit/s."

I concur with Dean. In testing, it is important to use a source CD you are VERY familiar with and sit down for a critical listen. Over the years, I have ear marked several CD's that I have played quite often and can easily hear differences when testing modifications, new equipment,etc. Since I know the music well on these "reference" recordings, any change that may have occured becomes quite obvious.

MP3 is very lossy - a well recorded piece of music on a CD that you know well might be better for testing.

[PrestonTom]

Jeff: I am following this thread with great interest, since I will soon be in the process of updating/modifying my AA crossovers. I am interested in your reviews

Rick: I think this is a very gracious offer that you have made. Way to go!

It sounds like various things may be happening.

Most likely (and this is guessing) is that not all crossovers (capacitors) decay with age. This would certainly not be the first time that components have a range of useful lifespans (Jeff may have just been fortunate, or his cabinets may have been in a better environment - temp, humidity etc)

Second possibility is that the effects are real but the effects are subtle. It is probably not a "night and day" difference if it requires both cabinets to be updated. I don't think Jeff's procedures are all that bad . With the results that some in the past have described, one would have thought the effects were very,very dramatic.

Another possibility is that the source material was not very revealing. I would give this one some thought. Although the Steely Dan recordings were typically done pretty well, an old rock recording may not be the best diagnostic. My bias has been for acoustic and classical recordings. Possibilities include some of the European small labels (Denon, Harmonia Mundi, many others etc). Some of the jazz possibilities would include the Blue Note and Impulse (although the older recordings may have been massaged quite a bit on re-release)

[Deang]

"Most likely (and this is guessing) is that not all crossovers (capacitors) decay with age. This would certainly not be the first time that components have a range of useful lifespans (Jeff may have just been fortunate, or his cabinets may have been in a better environment - temp, humidity etc)."

Anything is possible, but it's very unlikely. The cans were a decade or more older before PK even started using them.

"Second possibility is that the effects are real but the effects are subtle. It is probably not a "night and day" difference if it requires both cabinets to be updated. I don't think Jeff's procedures are all that bad . With the results that some in the past have described, one would have thought the effects were very, very dramatic."

You're an intelligent person, you need to remember what "stereo" is. The same thing isn't coming out of both speakers! I often test this way, but I have to pull the speakers out into the room and listen in mono -- and I use two mono recordings when I do it.

"Night and day difference" is kind of subjective. It shouldn't be, but it is. Look at the differences ascribed to speaker cables and interconnects. At any rate, since the drivers, horns, and downstream components carry the majority of the signature -- no, it's not a "night and day" difference unless the old networks are completely shot. What one should notice is a smoothing to the presentation with substantially reduced hash at low levels and reduced harshness at the higher SPLs.

"Another possibility is that the source material was not very revealing. I would give this one some thought. Although the Steely Dan recordings were typically done pretty well, an old rock recording may not be the best diagnostic. My bias has been for acoustic and classical recordings. Possibilities include some of the European small labels (Denon, Harmonia Mundi, many others etc). Some of the jazz possibilities would include the Blue Note and Impulse (although the older recordings may have been massaged quite a bit on re-release)".

A network filled with deteriorating caps will mask the details in the music, and yes, the better the recording the more noticeable it is. With my system and in my room which has a relatively low noise floor, I hear all kinds of interesting things -- and I can easily hear the difference between two networks of the same type built with different capacitors. Right now I'm playing with different types of inductors and the differences are readily apparent here as well.

[Jeff Matthews]

Tom, anything I can do to help - you know I will.

I think you could verify with Craig (NosValves) that the Steely Dan I'm listening to is a pretty clean and dynamic sample. It's not "Reelin' in the Years" (which is more hash), it's "Home at Last" - much more jazz-fusion-like with horns, keyboards, crisp highs, etc. At least that's my take on it. Craig may say it sucks.

I tell you what. Shortly, I will go back and try out "Hey Nineteen" (another sweet track) and see what it's like with both old and new xovers. They're easy to swap.

By the way, between you and Dean's comments, you all might have missed that I already did them both. I think I heard a difference - maybe. It's quite possible that the new xovers take a little edge of the highs. A good quality for sure. Could be like "night and day" to some, but not really to me. In other words, what I consider to be not all too important may be all the difference in the world to someone else.

Anyway, I'll report back.

[Jeff Matthews]

Okay, Tom, I'm back from the swap-out. I have to say still, if there's a difference, it's not exactly what I'd call "readily apparent." There could be, but in no way can I say definitely there is. As far as I'm concerned, the sound is identical. I just can't make out anything different.

It was suggested that maybe my KHorns came already re-capped. I don't know that to be the case one way or the other, but I did respond that the old xovers still have the old tin cans.

To be sure, I brought down my old xover. Maybe this will help answer the question:

My old xover has tin cans labeled:

(1) Aerovox P149G6, 100 VAC, 60HZ, 13uF, Non-PCB, 7614

(2) Aerovox P149G4, 100VAC, 60HZ, 2uF, Non-PCB, 7601 (hard to read, but I think this is correct)

(3) Aerovox P149G4, 100VAC, 60HZ, 2uF, Non-PCB, 7601 (looks like same as 2).

FWIW.

Also, aside from the loudness issue - since everyone seems to think I'm on a loudness binge, the Crown I have just sounds completely more powerful than the 30-watt Marantz I have - even at very low volumes (I don't mean a whisper, but I do mean you could speak up a little and have a conversation). It's just the woofs and low-mids have more "umph" to them. Maybe it has nothing to do with power of the amps at all. I'd sure like to know what the difference is between those amps that gives them their characteristics, though - particularly, what gives the Crown its ability to give the sound more "umph" even at low volumes.

[Jeff Matthews]

Jeff: I am following this thread with great interest, since I will soon be in the process of updating/modifying my AA crossovers. I am interested in your reviews

Rick: I think this is a very gracious offer that you have made. Way to go!

Hey, Rick, want to let Tom in on the challenge? I could mail them to him, and he could promise to keep them and buy them from you, or he could mail them back to you.

I think it might also shed some light on the xover issues - at least with these. I can't wait to see meagain's review. Maybe we could also get a review from Tom.

[3dzapper]

I'm game if Tom is. Tom, just remember that these are basically stock AAs with fresh caps. They in no way represent the level of improvement available with ALKs or Dean's Super AAs. What they basically will do is represent what your horns sounded like new thirty years ago before the advent of CAD and designs with "cost no object" development like Al's Extreme Slope Networks.

Rick

[meagain]

Hi guys. Slow going here. Hubby inisted on watching a football game and I've pretty much been in bed all day sick. Normal TV volumes are too loud for me right now. I think I'm kinda sensitive to input being sick like this. Not really in the mood for listening. Not sure if we're going to do anything tonight, but will try. He was supposed to do this spectrum analyzing thing but didn't get his mic back last night due to the absense of his friend at the NYE party.

BTW - The house we were at had Klipsch Synergy. They sounded very bad. Someone asked me "do yours sound as good as these?" Uhhh... I kinda had to contain myself.

[Deang]

Rick -- I'm just curious what caps you dropped in those networks.

[3dzapper]

Just some surplus NOS ASC 2.0s and an Aerovox 12 bridged by a GE 1. They sounded pretty good in my Belles when I was testing them. Better than the GEs I have been using which, to me, sound better than Musicaps. Of course, as you know, the sound we get through different caps is subjective to our own ears.

Meaghan, Hope you feel better tomorrow.

Rick

[PrestonTom]

I'm game if Tom is. Tom, just remember that these are basically stock AAs with fresh caps. They in no way represent the level of improvement available with ALKs or Dean's Super AAs. What they basically will do is represent what your horns sounded like new thirty years ago before the advent of CAD and designs with "cost no object" development like Al's Extreme Slope Networks.

Rick

Rick,

Thank you for your kind offer.

But I must confess that right now my listening room contains about 12 boxes, a refrigerator, a dishwasher in a box, a second stove, a bunch of old cabinets etc. Some where in the back are the K-Horns.

Yes, you guessed it - I am in the middle of a kitchen renovation that is taking forever. I swear the idea started out as "why don't I just add a kitchen island". Well, it is never that simple. The electrical and lighting were all re-worked, new drywall on one end, moderate amount of plumbing, all new kitchen cabinets (also needing assembly), new paint, baseboards - yet to be installed, etc. The new counter tops & sink are hidden somewhere under the mess.

Someday I will get to the crossovers, but right now I am having to wash dishes in the bathroom .....

Good Luck,

-Tom

[Jeff Matthews]

Okay, Tom. Rick, I'll get them to you. Thanks.

[meagain]

That it? You're already done with your test? Are you saying there's a difference, but not worth buying new or refurbing crossovers for?

[garymd]

Meagain,

Just get a pair of Dean's or Al's upgraded networks and you won't have to worry about crossovers for the next 20 years. I promise. Bringing them back to spec is good but not a very noticable improvement as I expect you will soon discover.

[Allan Songer]

I have own or have owned original 40 year old networks (used them until 2001), original ALK networks, Dean B networks with Jensen PIO and then finally revised ALK networs with Jensen PIOs.

I have settled on the latter. I built them myself--it's EASY!

[meagain]

But what scares me is spending $450 or so on new crossovers and hardly noticing any difference also. That's what scares me about it.

[Jeff Matthews]

Sorry, I took a nap. Meagain, yep, that's it. I was on the fence about whether there was any change, and I said maybe a little less edge. After swapping yet again, I was even more on the fence. Being on the fence like that, to me, might as well be the same as no difference. So, unfortunately, I will go with no difference on this.

I'd have liked it to have made a differerence, though.

What about on your end? Still haven't been up to it?

On your part, I wouldn't even worry about ALK's, etc. until you've heard these. Maybe they'll make a difference for you. Just because they didn't do anything for me doesn't forego the possibility for you.

I still have my bet in place, though....... The experiment on my end sure reinforces where I said I'd put the $450. Hands down, you know where I said....

But let's see the test resultsd for you. So, what do ya say on your end?

[Deang]

I would just like to say that out of the hundreds of users who have done this -- Jeff is the FIRST to report the impact in this way.

Also, to recommend against an upgrade to a different filter design based on this present experience is pure lunacy.

[Jeff Matthews]

Dean, I don't know what to say in terms of possible explanations, but like I said, my review is as honest as they come.

Maybe, my caps were changed before. I did list what I had as my old caps. Could you tell anything from that?

Maybe I really AM deaf. []

Who knows?

I see you just edited to caution against anyone who might recommend against an upgrade based on my experience.

I am in agreement with you. As I put in my original post, I cautioned that my review was limited to my xovers and Rick's. It was never intended to go beyond that.

I still have my bet placed as to meagain's experience, though..... But it's just a bet. Wish she could get to it.

[BEC]

Dean said: "

I would just like to say that out of the hundreds of users who have done this -- Jeff is the FIRST to report the impact in this way."

I am trying to ignore this mess, but - Yeah, what Dean said.

Jeff, Please send me your old crossovers and let me test them on a spectrum analyzer and let me test your capacitors. That will not cost you anything except shipping to me.

Bob