Heresy ReCap Letdown!

[mike stehr]

Build a speaker breadbord jig....Tweak on the fly!

[Audio Flynn]

I'm confused Michael. You say you agree with Dennis, and then continue as if you don't. Dennis said "The original caps were all dried up and reducing the mids and highs, and the 33µF wasn't cutting the mids from the woofer. With the new caps it probably sounds like it did new, a bit 'hot' in the mids and highs." He then posted a thread on how to reduce the squawker and tweeter output to bring the top into better balance with the woofer. If you agree with his assessment, then an A/B comparison is unecessary -- unless one wants to argue that if a speaker with bad capacitors sounds better to you, you should leave it that way. I think it's better to build with great parts, and then work with placement and the room.

Networks are designed with a price point in mind by the OEM (Klipsch) perhaps new caps makes little difference with Hereseys. I doubt it. My Belle and Chorus II network upgrades have been a profoud improvment in attack /decay detail and soundstage location of instruments in space.

Just this wekend I was asked to "DJ" a freinds wedding with the Chorus IIs. Pretty tough trying to place speakers in such little time, several positive comments were made and was was by a Martin Logan owner.

[Erik Mandaville]

To simplify:

This is a situation where someone made an investment in what are supposed to be high quality capacitors, and he was less than satisfied with the overall performance. Others have made similar changes in networks and instantly thought they heard an improvement.

What matters is not whether the cap is a mylar, oil, electrolytic, or anything else. The cost does not matter. A great part is only a great part if the perceived end result affirms that with performance that makes the investment seem worthwhile. Klipsch engineers have been using mylar capacitors for a long time because they are good capacitors to use in crossover networks. They don't have clever names or fancy heat shrink or claim to be 'audiophile grade' capacitors. They work, and many, including me have been satisfied with their performance. Over the past 17 years of building and experimenting, I've used the really expensive stuff. Sometimes I noticed a difference I liked; other times I didn't. Something was never 'better' simply because I paid more. Bob also happened to like GE motor run oil capacitors when they were more easily available. Others didn't care for them.

Tweaking on the fly is a great idea, and I've read many reviews of "high end' speaker designers that do exactly that.

Again, have a good opening of the school year, and I know things will work out with your crossovers.

Erik

[Deang]

Keep up the good work Erik, I'll soon make a small fortune downgrading everyone's networks.

[Audio Flynn]

To simplify: I am more confused after reading the simplification

This is a situation where someone made an investment in what are supposed to be high quality capacitors, and he was less than satisfied with the overall performance. Too early to make that assertion. Others have made similar changes in networks and instantly thought they heard an improvement. Expediency is not the best idea when judging improvements in audio.

What matters is not whether the cap is a mylar, oil, electrolytic, or anything else. The cost does not matter. A great part is only a great part if the perceived end result affirms that with performance that makes the investment seem worthwhile. Klipsch engineers have been using mylar capacitors for a long time because they are good capacitors to use in crossover networks. What data supports the assertion of "good"? They don't have clever names or fancy heat shrink or claim to be 'audiophile grade' capacitors. They work, and many, including me have been satisfied with their performance. Over the past 17 years of building and experimenting, I've used the really expensive stuff. Sometimes I noticed a difference I liked; other times I didn't. Something was never 'better' simply because I paid more. Bob also happened to like GE motor run oil capacitors when they were more easily available. Others didn't care for them.

Tweaking on the fly is a great idea, and I've read many reviews of "high end' speaker designers that do exactly that. Not a great idea for a Newbie enthusiast, perhaps for an experienced person.

Again, have a good opening of the school year, and I know things will work out with your crossovers.

Erik

When I got my Belle ALK Jr. (DEANG) crossovers and shelved the originals (thankfully) the sound was easily noted as different but took a few dozen hours to understand how the music realism improved. It took one squawker adjustment to lower the gain after about 55 hours to adjust to my room and taste. Other than changing driver tubes in my power amp it has been 7 months since my last change.

[Cody_Mack]

The small 33uf electrolytics had their leads cut to nothing, so those are gone 4 ever.

I have the 33uF recently removed from my 1983 Heresys. One of them still has the fork lugs and the other has plenty of lead remaining to re-terminate. My speakers sounded wonderful before I replaced the caps, and they sound just a little better now. I used all Solens; just wanted to refresh them because they were about 24 years old. Let me know if you want the old caps and I will mail them to you.

Rick

[mike stehr]

In the case with the speaker jig in the pic, I didn't do much in the way of tweaking on the fly, more of trying to match the crossover schematic part values to the speaker application. (B&C coax.)

I have swapped between a air core hyper-litz woofer inductor, and a 12 awg solid wire air core. (1.8 mh and 1.5 mh.) There is a perceived difference in bass, dunno which is better, I've just been using the 1.5 mh choke which is closer to the specced 1 mh.

I have tried different caps on the fly with respect to the tweeter at 6.8 uf, but like the sound of some Bennic metal polyprops at 5% tolerance. Things seemed to lock-in and lash up better than the other plus or minus 10% (or 20%) capacitors I tried. Older oil caps, tizzy Solens, a big 6 mic Northcreek 10% film and foil sounded dreadful. I dunno, I think tolerance comes to play in this application.

Eventually I'll source some better resistors and make finished networks.

[skywave-rider]

Wow, this thread has exploded! I just wanted to post a pic of my recap job, so I'll need time to read and respond. Holy cow. Anyway, here's a pic, I'm sure I'll have questions soon enough. 

Thank you all.

Vin

 

[Erik Mandaville]

"I am more confused after reading the simplification"

Okay -- thanks for your honesty.

"Expediency is not the best idea when judging improvements in audio."

That's fine for you; others may not necessarily feel the same. People should behave and respond in a way that works for them. It's their stuff, their ears, and their money.

"What data supports the assertion of "good"?"

Exactly. In this case, the fact that professional engineers understand that they are perfectly well suited to crossover use. Will a more expensive capacitor with the audio-oriented name be different? Probably. Will the difference always be for the better because the cap was given a catchy name and a higher price? Maybe. Not necessarily. I've done this for nearly twenty years -- not two or three -- and have used lots of expensive caps in preamps, amps, and crossovers. It wasn't always the *better* one that made the difference I preferred. That's the point here. Hopefuly that will be simple enough.

"When I got my Belle ALK Jr. (DEANG) crossovers and shelved the originals (thankfully) the sound was easily noted as different but took a few dozen hours to understand how the music realism improved."

Great! However, that doesn't mean that the opinion of someone else who immediately notices a difference for the better is less valid than your own approach.

"Not a great idea for a Newbie enthusiast, perhaps for an experienced person."

I was responding to Mike's experiment and to him. Whether it's a great idea or not for a newbie enthusiast is vague at best. I've known new-comers to this hobby that caught onto the theory and application of basic crossover design and theory very, very quickly; and certainly enough to experiment with mild differences in values of inductance and capacitance. I did that myself after a short time. These are passive components that do not pose the same electrical hazards as amps and preamps. I've known people who jumped in and caught on like lightening in a very short time. I try to not be so quick to judge the potential of others.

Soldering has also been described as very difficult in the past, and made out to be something suited only to a select few. Absolute nonsense. Many more here are finding that changing something as simple as a capacitor or inductor in a crossover is nothing at all to shy away from because it belongs to the sacred realm of audio. Nonsense. Once that is mastered, people can play with every capacitor and iron or air core inductor under the stars until they are happy. The type 'A' crossover as a schematic has the literary complexity of a stop sign. STOP. Not much doubt about what needs to be done, and even a very recent beginner can learn, if he or she is interested enough to do so, the applicable schematic symbols quickly.

Erik

[Erik Mandaville]

" but like the sound of some Bennic metal polyprops"

I do too.

[Erik Mandaville]

Skywave rider:

Your connections look right from what I can see of the woofer and tweeter leads. My contribution to this ends here, but I wanted to say you did a good job with that. With time, like everyone who makes these things, you start to develop your own style of making joints and connections, and can find ways of improving. What matters with this is that it looks like you have both reasonably good mechanical connections and soldering (from those points I can see).

Maybe you'll get more used to the sound over time; maybe not. If not, you know what was there before and what worked for you.

Erik

[Z4!]

Example 1:

" but like the sound of some Bennic metal polyprops"

I do too.

Example 2:

"I am more confused after reading the simplification"

Okay -- thanks for your honesty.

"Expediency is not the best idea when judging improvements in audio."

That's fine for you; others may not necessarily feel the same. People should behave and respond in a way that works for them. It's their stuff, their ears, and their money.

"What data supports the assertion of "good"?"

Exactly. In this case, the fact that professional engineers understand that they are perfectly well suited to crossover use. Will a more expensive capacitor with the audio-oriented name be different? Probably. Will the difference always be for the better because the cap was given a catchy name and a higher price? Maybe. Not necessarily. I've done this for nearly twenty years -- not two or three -- and have used lots of expensive caps in preamps, amps, and crossovers. It wasn't always the *better* one that made the difference I preferred. That's the point here. Hopefuly that will be simple enough.

"When I got my Belle ALK Jr. (DEANG) crossovers and shelved the originals (thankfully) the sound was easily noted as different but took a few dozen hours to understand how the music realism improved."

Great! However, that doesn't mean that the opinion of someone else who immediately notices a difference for the better is less valid than your own approach.

"Not a great idea for a Newbie enthusiast, perhaps for an experienced person."

I was responding to Mike's experiment and to him. Whether it's a great idea or not for a newbie enthusiast is vague at best. I've known new-comers to this hobby that caught onto the theory and application of basic crossover design and theory very, very quickly; and certainly enough to experiment with mild differences in values of inductance and capacitance. I did that myself after a short time. These are passive components that do not pose the same electrical hazards as amps and preamps. I've known people who jumped in and caught on like lightening in a very short time. I try to not be so quick to judge the potential of others.

Soldering has also been described as very difficult in the past, and made out to be something suited only to a select few. Absolute nonsense. Many more here are finding that changing something as simple as a capacitor or inductor in a crossover is nothing at all to shy away from because it belongs to the sacred realm of audio. Nonsense. Once that is mastered, people can play with every capacitor and iron or air core inductor under the stars until they are happy. The type 'A' crossover as a schematic has the literary complexity of a stop sign. STOP. Not much doubt about what needs to be done, and even a very recent beginner can learn, if he or she is interested enough to do so, the applicable schematic symbols quickly.

Erik

Erik,

I really really look forward to reading your thoughts on many of the ideas that are discussed on the forum (as well as the other posters in this thread and most of the forum "regulars"

BUT

It would certainly make it easier to follow who said what when if you would take advantage of the "Quote" option when replying to a comment. I'm not trying to "get in your face", just make a comment that I think will make following the thread easier! []

[colterphoto1]

I'm confused Michael. You say you agree with Dennis, and then continue as if you don't. Dennis said "The original caps were all dried up and reducing the mids and highs, and the 33µF wasn't cutting the mids from the woofer. With the new caps it probably sounds like it did new, a bit 'hot' in the mids and highs." He then posted a thread on how to reduce the squawker and tweeter output to bring the top into better balance with the woofer. If you agree with his assessment, then an A/B comparison is unecessary -- unless one wants to argue that if a speaker with bad capacitors sounds better to you, you should leave it that way. I think it's better to build with great parts, and then work with placement and the room.

You are correct Dean, that was a bit confusing. To further clarify, according to our poster's initial reaction, Dennis's reasoning sounds theoretically correct. i.e. that could be what was being heard. I only meant to say that a true A/B comparison would have probably further exemplified the difference. Auditory memory is very short. Even Bro Mike Crites could not change out a network quick enough to make a valid before/after comparison (no offense Mike). That is why I feel we owe it to our sense of scientific method to do the comparison.

[Erik Mandaville]

Z4!

You're right; thanks for pointing that out to me. You were offering helpful information, and I didn't take it as getting in my face at all.

I'll make an effort with that in the future.

Erik

[Mike Lindsey]

Z4!

You're right; thanks for pointing that out to me. You were offering helpful information, and I didn't take it as getting in my face at all.

I'll make an effort with that in the future.

Erik

I agree, Eric. Your posts are always hard to follow when you are quoting others.

Just hit the Quote button on the post that you are quoting. You will see the entire original quote inside the begin quote [q u o t e user=Erik Mandaville] (without the spaces) and the end quote [/ q u o t e] (again without the spaces).

If you don't want the entire post in your response then remove what you don't want and leave only what it is you are responding to in there. If you are responding to multiple sections of that post then you can put a [q u o t e] (without the spaces) and an end quote [/ q u o t e] around what it is you are quoting. Here is an example:

I'll make an effort with that in the future.

It sure makes it easier to understand when you are using the quote feature.

Mike

[jacksonbart]

some people are into caps and others are into flea powered amps. To each thier own. I prefer Dianetics in an attempt to rid my head of all those engrams.

[Erik Mandaville]

I agree, Eric. Your posts are always hard to follow when you are quoting others.

Just hit the Quote button on the post that you are quoting. You will see the entire original quote inside the begin quote [q u o t e user=Erik Mandaville] (without the spaces) and the end quote [/ q u o t e] (again without the spaces).

If you don't want the entire post in your response then remove what you don't want and leave only what it is you are responding to in there. If you are responding to multiple sections of that post then you can put a [q u o t e] (without the spaces) and an end quote [/ q u o t e] around what it is you are quoting. Here is an example:

I'll make an effort with that in the future.

It sure makes it easier to understand when you are using the quote feature.

Mike

Well, I just tried this twice, and I hope it works this time. I do appreciate your help with this. I've never used the feature because I in turn tend to get lost in responses containing not just one but multiple quotes from different people, only to be ended by an actual response consisting of just a few words. Thanks again!

Erik

[Erik Mandaville]

I agree, Eric. Your posts are always hard to follow when you are quoting others.

Just hit the Quote button on the post that you are quoting. You will see the entire original quote inside the begin quote [q u o t e user=Erik Mandaville] (without the spaces) and the end quote [/ q u o t e] (again without the spaces).

If you don't want the entire post in your response then remove what you don't want and leave only what it is you are responding to in there. If you are responding to multiple sections of that post then you can put a [q u o t e] (without the spaces) and an end quote [/ q u o t e] around what it is you are quoting. Here is an example:

I'll make an effort with that in the future.

It sure makes it easier to understand when you are using the quote feature.

Mike

Well, I just tried this twice, and I hope it works this time. I do appreciate your help with this. I've never used the feature because I in turn tend to get lost in responses containing not just one but multiple quotes from different people, only to be ended by an actual response consisting of just a few words. Thanks again!

Erik

Again.

[Erik Mandaville]

I agree, Eric. Your posts are always hard to follow when you are quoting others.

Just hit the Quote button on the post that you are quoting. You will see the entire original quote inside the begin quote [q u o t e user=Erik Mandaville] (without the spaces) and the end quote [/ q u o t e] (again without the spaces).

If you don't want the entire post in your response then remove what you don't want and leave only what it is you are responding to in there. If you are responding to multiple sections of that post then you can put a [q u o t e] (without the spaces) and an end quote [/ q u o t e] around what it is you are quoting. Here is an example:

I'll make an effort with that in the future.

It sure makes it easier to understand when you are using the quote feature.

"Mike

Well, I just tried this twice, and I hope it works this time. I do appreciate your help with this. I've never used the feature because I in turn tend to get lost in responses containing not just one but multiple quotes from different people, only to be ended by an actual response consisting of just a few words. Thanks again!"

Erik

Again.

[Erik Mandaville]

Well, I just tried this twice, and I hope it works this time. I do appreciate your help with this. I've never used the feature because I in turn tend to get lost in responses containing not just one but multiple quotes from different people, only to be ended by an actual response consisting of just a few words. Thanks again!

Erik