Improving One's Speakers - On the mark or way off? Dick, T..

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

The following was written on how one can improve their existing
speakers. Comments please?
**Okay there are likely lots of improvements in many areas to be had,
and you can improve them for not a lot of money and a little bit of
time that might be fun anyway.

I'll start at the bottom end and work up.

First of all the cabinets in that series is not likely to be as heavy
built as they upper end stuff that they offer. Lightly braced 3/4"
material at best.

I would add Blackhole 5 to the enclosure in all areas between the
bracing covering the center of each panel. This will tighten up the
bass response and take away some nasty resonances that you didn't
realize were so bad until they were gone.

If something like Blackhole 5 is out of the budget then DIY something
like it. I can tell you how to do that too if you like. It will not be
expensive but will take more time and effort.

The lower woofers likely have about an 18 gauge iron core inductor on
them. It's kind of sad to use any good quality heavy gauge wire on the
speaker for it to pass through something like that.

Replace it with something like an Erse super Q coil in a 14 gauge and
in the exact same mH value. This will pick up the very bottom end some
due to the lower DCR. Any Electrolytic caps need to be tossed and
replaced with a good poly cap. The value will likely be high so I would
also by-pass that with a smaller value. This will increase the
dissipation rate and give you better transient response. Tighter faster
bass...

If the cost of pure poly caps is too high then use a combo. Say you
need 100uF. Then use a 80uF electrolytic cap by-passed by a 20uF poly
cap then a .1uf film and foil cap or something. This will still help a
lot.

In the mid-range change out any iron core inductor in the series path
(part of the low pass filter) and use a high quality air core inductor.
This value will likely be 1.0 to 1.5mH. You will need to go up in gauge
to get close to the original DCR. If an iron core inductor is used in
the shunt circuit (in the high pass part of the mid network) then you
can get away with it there. It will likely be a large value anyway and
the higher DCR of a small gauge inductor is not issue here. They may
have a resistor in line with it anyway.

Use only poly caps the midrange circuit too and by-pass the larger
values again with small by-pass caps.

In the tweeter circuit you need to use good quality caps, at least a
decent poly cap. B&W typically uses a small air core inductor in the
tweeter circuit and it can be reused.

Throw out the Bennic sand caste resistors too, and at least use
something as good as a non-inductive Links. They are only about .38
each from Solen. Mills would be great but higher too.

B&W typically voices their speakers to be a little hot in the top end
to make them grab you when you first hear them in a store but get
fatiguing when listening to them for long periods at home. You can
slightly increase the resistor value in the series leg of the L-pad or
slightly decrease the resistor value in the parallel section of the
L-pad to pull the output back down to a smoother level.

Point to point wire it all (get ride of the low gauge printed circuit
board) on a small circuit board or thin piece of wood.

If you can, buy your parts from a company that will at least match your
caps for you. This will really help the imaging and place everything
where it is supposed to be. For instance most caps are +/-5%. Say one
cap is out 5% one way and one cap is out 5% the other way. Like a 6.0uF
could actually be a 5.7uF or a 6.3uF. This will cause one speaker to be
a half of a db louder in one area than the other speaker and everything
played in that frequency range will be shifted over towards one speaker
by a couple of feet (not where it was supposed to be in the sound
stage). It is okay if the cap values are off a little so long as the
two speakers are the same.

Be sure to replace everything with the same values that were there so
that the overall balance will still be the same.

All that good stuff.... Then use good wire.**

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Chu Gai wrote:
> The following was written on how one can improve their existing
> speakers. Comments please?

What speakers are we taling about? This is highly relevant
to the questions at hand.

> **Okay there are likely lots of improvements in many areas to be had,
> and you can improve them for not a lot of money and a little bit of
> time that might be fun anyway.
>
> I'll start at the bottom end and work up.
>
> First of all the cabinets in that series is not likely to be as heavy
> built as they upper end stuff that they offer. Lightly braced 3/4"
> material at best.
>
> I would add Blackhole 5 to the enclosure in all areas between the
> bracing covering the center of each panel. This will tighten up the
> bass response and take away some nasty resonances that you didn't
> realize were so bad until they were gone.

Sorry, having experimented extensively witha variety of these
miracle cures, I have to say that, no, it will NOT "tighten up
the bass response." The "tightness of the bass response," that
is the amount of damp,ing present at and around resonance or,
more specifically, the system Q, is foremost determined by the
amount of electrical damping in the system, secondarily by the
amount of mechanical damping present in the driver suspension.
These two factors alone account for probably 99% of the total
system damping (and this is no hyperbole) and the "tightness
of the bass response). The contribution of panel resonance to
the bass response ranks FAR below these and other contributors.
Consider the frequency of these resonance, typically significantly
above the bass regions.

> The lower woofers likely have about an 18 gauge iron core inductor on
> them. It's kind of sad to use any good quality heavy gauge wire on
the
> speaker for it to pass through something like that.

Yea, consider also that the voice coils themselves are wound out
of something grossly awful like 27 gauge wire!!

> Replace it with something like an Erse super Q coil in a 14 gauge and
> in the exact same mH value. This will pick up the very bottom end
some
> due to the lower DCR.

Really? Let's look at this claim. Let's consider a 2 mH coil
as an example. A typical "18 gauge iron core inductor" of that
value comes in with a DC resistance of about 0.25 ohms. The
magic coil that was recommended has a resistance of 0.143 ohms.
The claim is that it will "pick up the very bottom end".

Well, in fact, this claim can be shown on several fronts to be
nonsense. Assume a nominal 8 ohm impedance to start. The
difference in attenuation due to the resistance will be on the
order 0.12 dB broadband.

Now, more to the specific claim about it "picking up the very
bottom end due to the lower DCR," we can trivially show that
for two reasons exactly the opposite will happen. First, the
look at the electrical impedance at the speaker at the very
bottom end, which is likely to be substantially higher due
to the motional impedance at resonance. Let's say it's
on the order of 30 ohms, not at all implausible. A DCR of
0.25 ohms will result boost at resonance of +.2 dB relative to
the midband, while the "magic inductor's" DCR of 0.143 leads
to relative boost at resonance of +0.1 dB.

Secondly, the lowered DC resistance of the replacement
recommended leads to a higher damping, and the higher damping
leads to REDUCTION in the response relative to the midband.

Grnated, the changes are small, probably of no audible significance,
but the point being that the person making these technical claims
is making them clearly from a standpoint of technical ignorance.

> Any Electrolytic caps need to be tossed and
> replaced with a good poly cap. The value will likely be high so I
would
> also by-pass that with a smaller value. This will increase the
> dissipation rate and give you better transient response. Tighter
faster
> bass...

False: the claim is made with no basis in technical fact. The
"tighter, faster bass" properties are determined by the bandwidth
of the signal fed to the driver, and that's determined by the
crossover transfer function at the top, the lower cutoff frequency
at the bottom, and the person making this claim has made NO connection
between the unsupported claims of "increased dissipation rate"
and any of these factors.

> If the cost of pure poly caps is too high then use a combo. Say you
> need 100uF. Then use a 80uF electrolytic cap by-passed by a 20uF poly
> cap then a .1uf film and foil cap or something. This will still help
a
> lot.

No, it will not. This is utter myth.

> B&W typically voices their speakers to be a little hot in the top end
> to make them grab you when you first hear them in a store but get
> fatiguing when listening to them for long periods at home. You can
> slightly increase the resistor value in the series leg of the L-pad
or
> slightly decrease the resistor value in the parallel section of the
> L-pad to pull the output back down to a smoother level.

I see we're talking here about B&W speakers. Let me assure you
that the people at B&W know a LOT more about the design of speakers
om general and a LOT more about their designs then whoever the yahoo
is making these technically baseless recommendations. If this guy
is so smart, why isn't (s)he on B&W's engineering team? Or, even
better out designing speakers to compete with B&W?

> Point to point wire it all (get ride of the low gauge printed circuit
> board) on a small circuit board or thin piece of wood.

Nonsense. What's the DC resisance of a 0.1" wide, 1-2" long trace
on a PC board comapred to that of, say, a 2 foot pice of 14 guage
wire? What is the resistance of either in relation to the SINGLE
largest DC resistance in the entire circuit, that of the voice coil
winding, which is typically a couple of orders of magnitude greater
that EITHER?

> If you can, buy your parts from a company that will at least match
your
> caps for you. This will really help the imaging and place everything
> where it is supposed to be. For instance most caps are +/-5%. Say one
> cap is out 5% one way and one cap is out 5% the other way. Like a
6.0uF
> could actually be a 5.7uF or a 6.3uF. This will cause one speaker to
be
> a half of a db louder in one area than the other speaker and
everything
> played in that frequency range will be shifted over towards one
speaker
> by a couple of feet (not where it was supposed to be in the sound
> stage). It is okay if the cap values are off a little so long as the
> two speakers are the same.

Nonsense. A slightly different value of cap will NOT change the
the output level of a speaker as claimed. Let's look at exactly
the figures claimed. In the crossover passband, the levels will
remain identical. In the stop band, they will remain identical.
Around the crossover, there will be a slight change in the response.
A 10% difference in cap value will result in a change in the
crossover point of on the order of 5%. Further, the statistical
means of stating the tolerance is NOT that one has equal probabilities
of having one that's 5% low and one that's 5% high. In practice,
the ACTUAL range of values is substantially smaller.

> Be sure to replace everything with the same values that were there so
> that the overall balance will still be the same.

How about replacing this advice with something thaty's grounded
in actual technical experience instead?

> All that good stuff.... Then use good wire.**

Yeah, be sure to rewind those voice coils, also. THey have EVIL
amounts of that bad DC resistance.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

dpierce wrote,
**What speakers are we taling about? This is highly relevant to the
questions at hand. **

It was a general comment made to anyone with speakers. In fact, it was
made by one of the principals of a small outfit that manufactures
speakers. If you want, I'll gladly supply the outfit. If decorum
suggests that this be not made public knowledge, I'll be happy to reply
in private.
An associate sent me the information for yucks and giggles having
stated that what galled him in particular was that the information went
unchallenged and was swallowed up like some slop served to hogs. No
doubt, those reading this, were particularly happy to have a known
designer of speakers grace the forum's presence.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

**Which forum did it appear on? **

Hometheatertalk.com

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

<dpierce@cartchunk.org> wrote in message
news:1107804064.977984.21550@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "Chu Gai" <mushupork1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1107784388.256608.242060@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
>>
>>> The following was written on how one can improve their existing
>>> speakers. Comments please?

>> Cut to the chase:

>> Most people's speakers are in trouble at the lowest frequencies they
>> are called upon to handle. The simplest best way to address this is
>> to add a good, well-implemented subwoofer.

> Yes, the result then points out that the rest of most speakers is in
> trouble.

Could be. However, there are a fair number of speakers that simply sound a
lot better when freed of heavy bass responsibilities.

> But, more to the point: not only will the "fixes" recommended by
> the original poster NOT have the effects claimed, it is most certain
> that if the speakers being discussed DO have deficiencies, these
> fixes will NOT have ANY audible effect on them.

Agreed. Regrettably those kind of snake-oil and majoring in minors type
fixes pass for wisdom on many audio forums.

> These sorts of fixes are recommended because they are easy to
> implement, NOT because they work.

Agreed. They may provide temporary psychological fixes, but they don't fix
the fundamental underlying problems.

>The real problem with speakers,
> i.e., those that case audible deficiencies in the bass, audible
> response errors, and such, are NOT so easily solved: they require
> redesign of the system, redesign of the drivers, and so on, and NONE
> of the tweaks mentioned address the potentially real problems that
> lead to audible deficiencies in speakers: they don't deal with
> them AT ALL.

So it is with many tweeks. The good news for the person who sold the
speakers is that he has no legal liability for the performance of tweeked
speakers. Many tweeks are irreversable.

> For example, if a speaker appears to be difficient in the extreme
> low base, one first has to find out WHY. Is it because the fundamental
> mechanical resonance of the driver is too high? Is it because the
> system is overdamped? Is it because the drivers are wrong for the
> enclosure or the enclosure is wrong for the drivers?

Or, are the drivers themselves simply not up to the job?

Then there are the serious issues in crossover design - not the ones you
*fix* with a mass-replacement with film dielectric caps...

>NONE of these
> silly little tweaks address these problems AT ALL, and, more
> importantly, none of them identify or even CARE as to the source
> of the problem. The comment about how changing out from electrolytics
> will improve the bass is just plain laughable.

Capacitor dielectric madness the logical consequence of an illogical
theory. It's not that all capacitors are the same, but what matters and what
doesn't is pretty well understood and was well understood long before Marsh
and Jung.


> These tweaks are something that any idiot with a soldering iron,
> a web browser and a credit card can do. And, unfortunately, many
> idiots do them, and then turn around and spew the sort of mythical
> nonsense we see in the aforementioned example.

Agreed.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Chu Gai wrote:
> The following was written on how one can improve their existing
> speakers. Comments please?
> **Okay there are likely lots of improvements in many areas to be had,
> and you can improve them for not a lot of money and a little bit of
> time that might be fun anyway.
>
> I'll start at the bottom end and work up.
>
> First of all the cabinets in that series is not likely to be as heavy
> built as they upper end stuff that they offer. Lightly braced 3/4"
> material at best.
>
> I would add Blackhole 5 to the enclosure in all areas between the
> bracing covering the center of each panel. This will tighten up the
> bass response and take away some nasty resonances that you didn't
> realize were so bad until they were gone.
>
> If something like Blackhole 5 is out of the budget then DIY something
> like it. I can tell you how to do that too if you like. It will not be
> expensive but will take more time and effort.
>
> The lower woofers likely have about an 18 gauge iron core inductor on
> them. It's kind of sad to use any good quality heavy gauge wire on the
> speaker for it to pass through something like that.
>
> Replace it with something like an Erse super Q coil in a 14 gauge and
> in the exact same mH value. This will pick up the very bottom end some
> due to the lower DCR. Any Electrolytic caps need to be tossed and
> replaced with a good poly cap. The value will likely be high so I would
> also by-pass that with a smaller value. This will increase the
> dissipation rate and give you better transient response. Tighter faster
> bass...
>
> If the cost of pure poly caps is too high then use a combo. Say you
> need 100uF. Then use a 80uF electrolytic cap by-passed by a 20uF poly
> cap then a .1uf film and foil cap or something. This will still help a
> lot.
>
> In the mid-range change out any iron core inductor in the series path
> (part of the low pass filter) and use a high quality air core inductor.
> This value will likely be 1.0 to 1.5mH. You will need to go up in gauge
> to get close to the original DCR. If an iron core inductor is used in
> the shunt circuit (in the high pass part of the mid network) then you
> can get away with it there. It will likely be a large value anyway and
> the higher DCR of a small gauge inductor is not issue here. They may
> have a resistor in line with it anyway.
>
> Use only poly caps the midrange circuit too and by-pass the larger
> values again with small by-pass caps.
>
> In the tweeter circuit you need to use good quality caps, at least a
> decent poly cap. B&W typically uses a small air core inductor in the
> tweeter circuit and it can be reused.
>
> Throw out the Bennic sand caste resistors too, and at least use
> something as good as a non-inductive Links. They are only about .38
> each from Solen. Mills would be great but higher too.
>
> B&W typically voices their speakers to be a little hot in the top end
> to make them grab you when you first hear them in a store but get
> fatiguing when listening to them for long periods at home. You can
> slightly increase the resistor value in the series leg of the L-pad or
> slightly decrease the resistor value in the parallel section of the
> L-pad to pull the output back down to a smoother level.
>
> Point to point wire it all (get ride of the low gauge printed circuit
> board) on a small circuit board or thin piece of wood.
>
> If you can, buy your parts from a company that will at least match your
> caps for you. This will really help the imaging and place everything
> where it is supposed to be. For instance most caps are +/-5%. Say one
> cap is out 5% one way and one cap is out 5% the other way. Like a 6.0uF
> could actually be a 5.7uF or a 6.3uF. This will cause one speaker to be
> a half of a db louder in one area than the other speaker and everything
> played in that frequency range will be shifted over towards one speaker
> by a couple of feet (not where it was supposed to be in the sound
> stage). It is okay if the cap values are off a little so long as the
> two speakers are the same.
>
> Be sure to replace everything with the same values that were there so
> that the overall balance will still be the same.
>
> All that good stuff.... Then use good wire.**
>
After reading all the responses, which I am sure are true considering
the experienced knowledgeable sources they come from, I am in shock. I
understand the vital importance of alignment and driver quality and
design and testing. The most important things that will determine the
quality of the speaker. BUT Home Depot light gauge wire won't sound
worse than a good quality oxygen free and no need for Hovlands or Flat
Lay low inductance coils. I appreciate the sound difference is minimal
but it must make a qualitative change that is audible. NO?

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Heather G. wrote:
> components, yes and no. Components help Black hole will change your
Q I
> think it is. So your bass response may change from a Q of 0.9 to
0.6,
> altering the bass response.

No, it will not. This is an absurd assertion. By far the largest
single controlling factor in the total Q of a system is the driver
voice coil electrical resistance. It's responsible for something
like 60% to 90% of the factor contributing to system Q. The
mechanical losses in the suspension account for most of the rest,
such that TOGETHER, the driver electrical and mechanical losses
account for at least 99% of the factors that contrinute to driver
Q. A small part of the remainder is a combination of the driver's
radiation impedance and the absorbtive losses in the enclosure.
The factors controlled by something like this Black Hole stuff
MIGHT, in the worst possible enclosure, be responsible for
1 part in 1000 of the total losses.

>From that, how could anyone assert that using it would change
the Q from 0.9 to 0.6? That's just plain ridiculous.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Heather G." <spamstinks@aol.com> wrote in message
news:EYbOd.6083$WP2.2135@fe09.lga...
> Chu Gai wrote:
>> The following was written on how one can improve their existing
>> speakers. Comments please?
>> **Okay there are likely lots of improvements in many areas to be had,
>> and you can improve them for not a lot of money and a little bit of
>> time that might be fun anyway.
>>
>> I'll start at the bottom end and work up.
>>
>> First of all the cabinets in that series is not likely to be as heavy
>> built as they upper end stuff that they offer. Lightly braced 3/4"
>> material at best.
>>
>> I would add Blackhole 5 to the enclosure in all areas between the
>> bracing covering the center of each panel. This will tighten up the
>> bass response and take away some nasty resonances that you didn't
>> realize were so bad until they were gone.
>>
>> If something like Blackhole 5 is out of the budget then DIY something
>> like it. I can tell you how to do that too if you like. It will not be
>> expensive but will take more time and effort.
>>
>> The lower woofers likely have about an 18 gauge iron core inductor on
>> them. It's kind of sad to use any good quality heavy gauge wire on the
>> speaker for it to pass through something like that.
>>
>> Replace it with something like an Erse super Q coil in a 14 gauge and
>> in the exact same mH value. This will pick up the very bottom end some
>> due to the lower DCR. Any Electrolytic caps need to be tossed and
>> replaced with a good poly cap. The value will likely be high so I would
>> also by-pass that with a smaller value. This will increase the
>> dissipation rate and give you better transient response. Tighter faster
>> bass...
>>
>> If the cost of pure poly caps is too high then use a combo. Say you
>> need 100uF. Then use a 80uF electrolytic cap by-passed by a 20uF poly
>> cap then a .1uf film and foil cap or something. This will still help a
>> lot.
>>
>> In the mid-range change out any iron core inductor in the series path
>> (part of the low pass filter) and use a high quality air core inductor.
>> This value will likely be 1.0 to 1.5mH. You will need to go up in gauge
>> to get close to the original DCR. If an iron core inductor is used in
>> the shunt circuit (in the high pass part of the mid network) then you
>> can get away with it there. It will likely be a large value anyway and
>> the higher DCR of a small gauge inductor is not issue here. They may
>> have a resistor in line with it anyway.
>>
>> Use only poly caps the midrange circuit too and by-pass the larger
>> values again with small by-pass caps.
>>
>> In the tweeter circuit you need to use good quality caps, at least a
>> decent poly cap. B&W typically uses a small air core inductor in the
>> tweeter circuit and it can be reused.
>>
>> Throw out the Bennic sand caste resistors too, and at least use
>> something as good as a non-inductive Links. They are only about .38
>> each from Solen. Mills would be great but higher too.
>>
>> B&W typically voices their speakers to be a little hot in the top end
>> to make them grab you when you first hear them in a store but get
>> fatiguing when listening to them for long periods at home. You can
>> slightly increase the resistor value in the series leg of the L-pad or
>> slightly decrease the resistor value in the parallel section of the
>> L-pad to pull the output back down to a smoother level.
>>
>> Point to point wire it all (get ride of the low gauge printed circuit
>> board) on a small circuit board or thin piece of wood.
>>
>> If you can, buy your parts from a company that will at least match your
>> caps for you. This will really help the imaging and place everything
>> where it is supposed to be. For instance most caps are +/-5%. Say one
>> cap is out 5% one way and one cap is out 5% the other way. Like a 6.0uF
>> could actually be a 5.7uF or a 6.3uF. This will cause one speaker to be
>> a half of a db louder in one area than the other speaker and everything
>> played in that frequency range will be shifted over towards one speaker
>> by a couple of feet (not where it was supposed to be in the sound
>> stage). It is okay if the cap values are off a little so long as the
>> two speakers are the same.
>>
>> Be sure to replace everything with the same values that were there so
>> that the overall balance will still be the same.
>>
>> All that good stuff.... Then use good wire.**
>>
> After reading all the responses, which I am sure are true considering the
> experienced knowledgeable sources they come from, I am in shock. I
> understand the vital importance of alignment and driver quality and design
> and testing. The most important things that will determine the quality of
> the speaker. BUT Home Depot light gauge wire won't sound worse than a
> good quality oxygen free and no need for Hovlands or Flat Lay low
> inductance coils. I appreciate the sound difference is minimal but it
> must make a qualitative change that is audible. NO?

NO. I never suggested light gauge wire. I use 14 AWG myself, but only
because it was free.

Most wire that is sold for big bucks is oxygen free to begin with.

As to the coils, if you need something specific for a xover then you use
what works.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Chu Gai" <mushupork1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1107803018.618584.25740@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> **Which forum did it appear on? **
>
> Hometheatertalk.com
>
What is title of the thread?
How can I find it?
I just signed up. I've tried using the search but not getting anywhere
fast.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Chu Gai" <mushupork1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108061836.097559.114350@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> It was in the "Can You Hear This" section in a post title Biwiring.
> Shouldn't be too hard to find.
>
Thanks.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

I thought that Mr. Pierce might find these replies of some interest.

Mike, I will waste only a small amount of my time with you and give you
a little bit of education. If you ask for more I may give more, but as
for now, what I have to say could be falling of deaf ears for all I
know.

>If you've ever modeled a speakers and crossover you will see that
adding resistance will bump up the bass. You can measure it as well.


Sorry Mike, but you are not correct in this, and it is not a matter of
subjective nature. Chris DAlessio is correct. Lowering (reducing) the
resistance (lower DCR inductors) will increase low frequency output,
and yes I have seen it in many of my measurements.

>Tests have been done, no audible differences. I've done some myself
using Bennic, Axon, and Solen caps and they make no difference at all.



No audible difference in caps is a false statement, and there are many
reasons for the differences. However it may be true for you.

By comparing three similarly made poly caps, two of which are made in
the same facility (in France at SCR) you may not ever hear any
differences.

Sadly many entree level and some mid-fi level systems are not going to
allow for discernment from some changes in cap quality, let alone a
group of nearly identically made budget caps.

There are all kinds of problems that a system can have that will mask
any small improvements that can be made. Some systems exhibit high
noise floors, RFI noise, EMI noise, erratic phase shifts, uneven or
inaccurate response, smearing and induced noise from numerous sources
in the electronics (usually cheap caps), digital read errors, jitter
problems, driver related problems, etc.

It's kind of like getting in your car to go somewhere and you
windshield is covered in mud. So you get out and wipe off a small spot
the size of a quarter. You still can't see through the windshield. You
can't even tell if a bird flies over and drops a big turd on it or not.


Now if you have a really clean windshield (system) you can immediately
tell if a bird flies over and drops a turd on it.

I have heard systems so clean that you can't do anything to it that
doesn't have an effect. Everything has an effect.

As far as caps go, I have had several cap manufacturers send me free
samples for evaluation in hopes that I will use or recommend their caps
in products that I design or work on. I have even had a capacitor
manufacturer send me different versions of new caps that they are
developing just for me to test, listen to, and evaluate them, just for
my feedback. They want to know my subjective observations,
characteristics of each cap and how they sound compared to one another.


Our references systems are good enough that I have electronics
manufacturers and designers bring their stuff here to listen to it.

For instance: I recently had a company come here from Chicago (I am in
Texas) to listen to three different versions of a new DA converter on
our system. Funny thing is that after listening to the last unit, we
threw it up on a work bench, opened it up and by-passed the output
coupling caps with a small value, Teflon based, film and foil cap.
Everyone present noticed an immediate difference in the vocals in about
the first 4 or 5 seconds. It was obvious. It added air, space, and
distance between vocals and instruments. It had Blacker Blacks, meaning
more clear dead space between notes. Transits appeared shaper. The top
end was cleaner and had a much greater level of detail. This
manufacturer now offers these caps as a high resolution upgrade to
their DA converter.

>Why do people think they can re-engineer already good speakers.

Anything, ANYTHING, can be improved.

>If you have any measurement data to confirm any of the assertions you
made, please show them.


There are some things that I might be willing to share. Some things I
will not. Be specific.

>Any papers you have submitted to the JAES would also be of interest.

Some people write papers, some don't. Some people ask for credibility
and for some it just comes to them. There is no way at this time that I
would write about or publish anything related to the design work that I
am involved in at this time. When you are ahead of the game, working
with new technologies, or doing things that no one else is doing, then
the last thing you want to do is let the cat out of the bag.

>Yes Teflon is considered the best dielectric but it makes no audible
difference.

You are making me laugh.

>If you wish to to respond to any the criticisms and hash it out with
an acknowledged expert in the field of audio, I would suggest you make
the same assertions in one or both of the following forums:
rec.audio.high-end or rec.audio.tech.


I am laughing again. You obviously don't even know who I am, so here
is another small tid bit. Right now (today) I am currently doing design
work for three other loudspeaker companies (besides our own). One of
which asked me to design a new model for a current product line and an
entirely new product line. Let's just say they were impressed with my
work. Prior to this they were having design work done by Dick Pierce.
Small world huh?

>Wire has been done to death and there is none that is any better than
what can be had at Home Depot.

When I hear someone say something like that I can't help but feel sorry
for them.

There are a ton of things that can make a wire sound better, worse, or
different. Some are not easily measured, like wire skin effects,
dielectric absorption, effects of shielding or non-shielded, types of
shielded, RFI and EMI blocking or rejection, noise cancelling effects
from various types of braiding, types of cores used for braiding,
different types of dielectric materials, etc.

Then there are the easy things to measure that make a difference like
standard resistance, inductance, and capacitance changes. Here is a
real easy one. The foil based cables produced by Goertz. This is the
lowest inductance wire in the business, and it sounds very different
from a higher inductance cable. See this informative reading on the
Alpha Core page concerning wire. http://www.alphacore.com/mifaq.html

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Chu Gai" <mushupork1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108352409.204761.157270@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>I thought that Mr. Pierce might find these replies of some interest.
>
> Mike, I will waste only a small amount of my time with you and give you
> a little bit of education. If you ask for more I may give more, but as
> for now, what I have to say could be falling of deaf ears for all I
> know.
>
>>If you've ever modeled a speakers and crossover you will see that
> adding resistance will bump up the bass. You can measure it as well.
>
>
> Sorry Mike, but you are not correct in this, and it is not a matter of
> subjective nature. Chris DAlessio is correct. Lowering (reducing) the
> resistance (lower DCR inductors) will increase low frequency output,
> and yes I have seen it in many of my measurements.
>
>>Tests have been done, no audible differences. I've done some myself
> using Bennic, Axon, and Solen caps and they make no difference at all.
>
>
>
> No audible difference in caps is a false statement, and there are many
> reasons for the differences. However it may be true for you.
>
We were talking about speakers.

> By comparing three similarly made poly caps, two of which are made in
> the same facility (in France at SCR) you may not ever hear any
> differences.
>
> Sadly many entree level and some mid-fi level systems are not going to
> allow for discernment from some changes in cap quality, let alone a
> group of nearly identically made budget caps.
>
> There are all kinds of problems that a system can have that will mask
> any small improvements that can be made. Some systems exhibit high
> noise floors, RFI noise, EMI noise, erratic phase shifts, uneven or
> inaccurate response, smearing and induced noise from numerous sources
> in the electronics (usually cheap caps), digital read errors, jitter
> problems, driver related problems, etc.
>
> It's kind of like getting in your car to go somewhere and you
> windshield is covered in mud. So you get out and wipe off a small spot
> the size of a quarter. You still can't see through the windshield. You
> can't even tell if a bird flies over and drops a big turd on it or not.
>
>
> Now if you have a really clean windshield (system) you can immediately
> tell if a bird flies over and drops a turd on it.
>
> I have heard systems so clean that you can't do anything to it that
> doesn't have an effect. Everything has an effect.
>
> As far as caps go, I have had several cap manufacturers send me free
> samples for evaluation in hopes that I will use or recommend their caps
> in products that I design or work on. I have even had a capacitor
> manufacturer send me different versions of new caps that they are
> developing just for me to test, listen to, and evaluate them, just for
> my feedback. They want to know my subjective observations,
> characteristics of each cap and how they sound compared to one another.
>
>
> Our references systems are good enough that I have electronics
> manufacturers and designers bring their stuff here to listen to it.
>
> For instance: I recently had a company come here from Chicago (I am in
> Texas) to listen to three different versions of a new DA converter on
> our system. Funny thing is that after listening to the last unit, we
> threw it up on a work bench, opened it up and by-passed the output
> coupling caps with a small value, Teflon based, film and foil cap.
> Everyone present noticed an immediate difference in the vocals in about
> the first 4 or 5 seconds. It was obvious. It added air, space, and
> distance between vocals and instruments. It had Blacker Blacks, meaning
> more clear dead space between notes. Transits appeared shaper. The top
> end was cleaner and had a much greater level of detail. This
> manufacturer now offers these caps as a high resolution upgrade to
> their DA converter.
>
>>Why do people think they can re-engineer already good speakers.
>
> Anything, ANYTHING, can be improved.
>
But will the improvements be audible?


>>If you have any measurement data to confirm any of the assertions you
> made, please show them.
>
I was referring to the claims made about speaker improvements. None of
those tweaks will work, IME or in the opinion of Mr. Pierce. You seem to be
saying they will work.
>
> There are some things that I might be willing to share. Some things I
> will not. Be specific.
>

Share what you choose, I'm sure there are many who would benefit.


>>Any papers you have submitted to the JAES would also be of interest.
>
> Some people write papers, some don't. Some people ask for credibility
> and for some it just comes to them.

If they earn it.

There is no way at this time that I
> would write about or publish anything related to the design work that I
> am involved in at this time.

I'm not asking for that, I'm asking for evidence that the speaker tweaks
have any real benefit.

When you are ahead of the game, working
> with new technologies, or doing things that no one else is doing, then
> the last thing you want to do is let the cat out of the bag.
>
>>Yes Teflon is considered the best dielectric but it makes no audible
> difference.
>
> You are making me laugh.
>
In loudspeakers?

>>If you wish to to respond to any the criticisms and hash it out with
> an acknowledged expert in the field of audio, I would suggest you make
> the same assertions in one or both of the following forums:
> rec.audio.high-end or rec.audio.tech.
>
>
> I am laughing again. You obviously don't even know who I am, so here
> is another small tid bit. Right now (today) I am currently doing design
> work for three other loudspeaker companies (besides our own). One of
> which asked me to design a new model for a current product line and an
> entirely new product line. Let's just say they were impressed with my
> work. Prior to this they were having design work done by Dick Pierce.
> Small world huh?
>
Then why does he appear to disagree with all the assertions made in the
recomendations for improving speakers, which is the only area I was
commenting on.
Certiainly, I would not disagree that there is much room for improvement in
loudpeaker technology. I think CD technology is as good as it needs to be.
I think amplifiers have gooten as good as they need to be in order to
produce a clean signal.


>>Wire has been done to death and there is none that is any better than
> what can be had at Home Depot.
>
> When I hear someone say something like that I can't help but feel sorry
> for them.
>
> There are a ton of things that can make a wire sound better, worse, or
> different. Some are not easily measured, like wire skin effects,
> dielectric absorption, effects of shielding or non-shielded, types of
> shielded, RFI and EMI blocking or rejection, noise cancelling effects
> from various types of braiding, types of cores used for braiding,
> different types of dielectric materials, etc.
>

You have formal listening tests that demonstrate this to be true? If so
please post them and let them be critqued.

> Then there are the easy things to measure that make a difference like
> standard resistance, inductance, and capacitance changes.

My undestanding is that such differences need to be fairly gross in order to
be audible.

Here is a
> real easy one. The foil based cables produced by Goertz. This is the
> lowest inductance wire in the business, and it sounds very different
> from a higher inductance cable. See this informative reading on the
> Alpha Core page concerning wire. http://www.alphacore.com/mifaq.html
>
I would ask others to comment on the claims being made since yours seem to
be at odds with what I believe has been agreed on by most objective people.
For wire to sound different from other wire it has to be grossly mismatched
or have differences of around 20% in one of the criteria (L,C,or R), at
least that is the information I've gotten.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"François Yves Le Gal" <flegal@aingeal.com> wrote in message
news:vog211h3rchjtb7ubkbsp99j9ol9gqo4fb@4ax.com...
> On 13 Feb 2005 19:40:09 -0800, "Chu Gai" <mushupork1@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Lowering (reducing) the
>>resistance (lower DCR inductors) will increase low frequency output,
>>and yes I have seen it in many of my measurements.
>
> Care to demonstrate this using an accepted model?
> A lower series R lowers the Qts.
>
>>I have heard systems so clean that you can't do anything to it that
>>doesn't have an effect. Everything has an effect.
>
> You just imagine that there are differences.
>
>>For instance: I recently had a company come here from Chicago (I am in
>>Texas)
>
> Well, you're not.
>
> You're connected thru Warwick Valley Telephone, Warwick, New York. And all
> of your posts since 2002, as archived by Google, show the same connection.
>
>>Some people write papers, some don't. Some people ask for credibility
>>and for some it just comes to them. There is no way at this time that I
>>would write about or publish anything related to the design work that I
>>am involved in at this time. When you are ahead of the game, working
>>with new technologies, or doing things that no one else is doing, then
>>the last thing you want to do is let the cat out of the bag.
>
> Yeah, sure. Whatever you say.
>
> You're a:
> 1 - bozo who doesn't know a thing about audio
> 2 - sloped forehead tedious gimp
> 3 - Certified MoronT
> 4 - very poor troll
> 5 - all of the above
>
>>Some are not easily measured, like wire skin effects
>
> Sure. Care to demonstrate how skin effect impacts a typical AF cable ?
>
> <SNIP> the rest of your bullshit.
>
I must have missed that bit about skin effect. LOL.

Imagine you and I being on the same side of this issue. :-)

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Francois, I believe you've misunderstood the nature of my last post. I
am not, repeat not, the individual from Texas. I cut the information
that I gave from the aforementioned website. They are not my comments.
Personally, I lack the skill and knowledge in this area that Mr. Pierce
and others have when it comes to rapidly identifying the
mis-statements. However, judging from my original post and the one you
referred to (made by one of the principals of GR-Research, a Danny
Richie), it would appear that Richie does also.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

I thought these were your comments as did Francois.

Please provide some kind quote marks to avoid confusion.

The comments you posted below are from one of the people at GR Research, and
I'll be damned if they don't sell all the things that were recommended as
tweaks.


"Chu Gai" <mushupork1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108352409.204761.157270@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>I thought that Mr. Pierce might find these replies of some interest.
>
> Mike, I will waste only a small amount of my time with you and give you
> a little bit of education. If you ask for more I may give more, but as
> for now, what I have to say could be falling of deaf ears for all I
> know.
>
>>If you've ever modeled a speakers and crossover you will see that
> adding resistance will bump up the bass. You can measure it as well.
>
>
> Sorry Mike, but you are not correct in this, and it is not a matter of
> subjective nature. Chris DAlessio is correct. Lowering (reducing) the
> resistance (lower DCR inductors) will increase low frequency output,
> and yes I have seen it in many of my measurements.
>
>>Tests have been done, no audible differences. I've done some myself
> using Bennic, Axon, and Solen caps and they make no difference at all.
>
>
>
> No audible difference in caps is a false statement, and there are many
> reasons for the differences. However it may be true for you.
>
> By comparing three similarly made poly caps, two of which are made in
> the same facility (in France at SCR) you may not ever hear any
> differences.
>
> Sadly many entree level and some mid-fi level systems are not going to
> allow for discernment from some changes in cap quality, let alone a
> group of nearly identically made budget caps.
>
> There are all kinds of problems that a system can have that will mask
> any small improvements that can be made. Some systems exhibit high
> noise floors, RFI noise, EMI noise, erratic phase shifts, uneven or
> inaccurate response, smearing and induced noise from numerous sources
> in the electronics (usually cheap caps), digital read errors, jitter
> problems, driver related problems, etc.
>
> It's kind of like getting in your car to go somewhere and you
> windshield is covered in mud. So you get out and wipe off a small spot
> the size of a quarter. You still can't see through the windshield. You
> can't even tell if a bird flies over and drops a big turd on it or not.
>
>
> Now if you have a really clean windshield (system) you can immediately
> tell if a bird flies over and drops a turd on it.
>
> I have heard systems so clean that you can't do anything to it that
> doesn't have an effect. Everything has an effect.
>
> As far as caps go, I have had several cap manufacturers send me free
> samples for evaluation in hopes that I will use or recommend their caps
> in products that I design or work on. I have even had a capacitor
> manufacturer send me different versions of new caps that they are
> developing just for me to test, listen to, and evaluate them, just for
> my feedback. They want to know my subjective observations,
> characteristics of each cap and how they sound compared to one another.
>
>
> Our references systems are good enough that I have electronics
> manufacturers and designers bring their stuff here to listen to it.
>
> For instance: I recently had a company come here from Chicago (I am in
> Texas) to listen to three different versions of a new DA converter on
> our system. Funny thing is that after listening to the last unit, we
> threw it up on a work bench, opened it up and by-passed the output
> coupling caps with a small value, Teflon based, film and foil cap.
> Everyone present noticed an immediate difference in the vocals in about
> the first 4 or 5 seconds. It was obvious. It added air, space, and
> distance between vocals and instruments. It had Blacker Blacks, meaning
> more clear dead space between notes. Transits appeared shaper. The top
> end was cleaner and had a much greater level of detail. This
> manufacturer now offers these caps as a high resolution upgrade to
> their DA converter.
>
>>Why do people think they can re-engineer already good speakers.
>
> Anything, ANYTHING, can be improved.
>
>>If you have any measurement data to confirm any of the assertions you
> made, please show them.
>
>
> There are some things that I might be willing to share. Some things I
> will not. Be specific.
>
>>Any papers you have submitted to the JAES would also be of interest.
>
> Some people write papers, some don't. Some people ask for credibility
> and for some it just comes to them. There is no way at this time that I
> would write about or publish anything related to the design work that I
> am involved in at this time. When you are ahead of the game, working
> with new technologies, or doing things that no one else is doing, then
> the last thing you want to do is let the cat out of the bag.
>
>>Yes Teflon is considered the best dielectric but it makes no audible
> difference.
>
> You are making me laugh.
>
>>If you wish to to respond to any the criticisms and hash it out with
> an acknowledged expert in the field of audio, I would suggest you make
> the same assertions in one or both of the following forums:
> rec.audio.high-end or rec.audio.tech.
>
>
> I am laughing again. You obviously don't even know who I am, so here
> is another small tid bit. Right now (today) I am currently doing design
> work for three other loudspeaker companies (besides our own). One of
> which asked me to design a new model for a current product line and an
> entirely new product line. Let's just say they were impressed with my
> work. Prior to this they were having design work done by Dick Pierce.
> Small world huh?
>
>>Wire has been done to death and there is none that is any better than
> what can be had at Home Depot.
>
> When I hear someone say something like that I can't help but feel sorry
> for them.
>
> There are a ton of things that can make a wire sound better, worse, or
> different. Some are not easily measured, like wire skin effects,
> dielectric absorption, effects of shielding or non-shielded, types of
> shielded, RFI and EMI blocking or rejection, noise cancelling effects
> from various types of braiding, types of cores used for braiding,
> different types of dielectric materials, etc.
>
> Then there are the easy things to measure that make a difference like
> standard resistance, inductance, and capacitance changes. Here is a
> real easy one. The foil based cables produced by Goertz. This is the
> lowest inductance wire in the business, and it sounds very different
> from a higher inductance cable. See this informative reading on the
> Alpha Core page concerning wire. http://www.alphacore.com/mifaq.html
>

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

On 14 Feb 2005 19:51:17 -0800, "Chu Gai" <mushupork1@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I cut the information
>that I gave from the aforementioned website.

Then you should have properly formatted and attributed the quote.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Terrified" <crantz7z@windsurf.net> wrote in message
news:cBeQd.21705$ic1.17568@fe09.lga...
> Chu Gai wrote:
>> The following was written on how one can improve their existing
>> speakers. Comments please?
>>
> I have read all the posted comments from the start of the thread. DPIERCE
> seems to be the most knowledgeable and experienced so I will have to agree
> with him. To summarize from what his scientific facts are stating, the
> differences (IF ANY) are minimal as specified in the original post.
>
> Therefore in conclusion the BEST way to get the BEST sound out of a
> speaker system is THE ORIGINAL design and selection of drivers, how they
> are implemented in a system and aligned to each other and how they are
> boxed/mounted.
>
> I have been an enthusiast of speakers for many years and while many tweaks
> and or "improvements" can be suggested, I have to say that in my
> experience DPIERCE IS ultimately correct (BASED ON SCIENCE AND FACT).
> Speaker building as stated by the Loudspeaker Design Cookbook by V.D. is
> an art as well as a science, however, in this thread DPIERCE has it right
> and overall the science is the preponderance of getting it right and
> building a GREAT SPEAKER SYSTEM and all these other tweaks (though ego
> boosting and good fro bragging rights) pale in comparison. You have to
> get the basics rights and they are 95% of the end result at least.

The only speaker tweak I've ever heard of that might have some substance is
to cover the tweeter faceplate with a felt ring. How effective it is I
couldn't say, but at least it can't do any harm and it's cheap.

Any data on this?

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> Cut to the chase:
>
> Most people's speakers are in trouble at the lowest frequencies they
are
> called upon to handle. The simplest best way to address this is to
add a
> good, well-implemented subwoofer.

I actually don't think this is as common a problem as is supposed. It
would be if we all played 20 Hz techno, but I would estimate your
average recording doesn't have too much energy below 80 Hz, and almost
nothing below 40 Hz. So the question arises how many people's speakers
are in trouble at 80 Hz (for example, through distorted mids in a
2-way)? Active bi-amping seems a little like over-kill for the
requirements of this scenario, and is anything but simple.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

<muckanic@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1109656547.675215.26290@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com

> Try this experiment: get hold
> of a 20+ year old, well-used speaker. Replace the electrolytics with
> polys on one side only, set the amp to mono, and swap between
> channels as the listening test.

Been there, done that. Only I added one refinement - I made it a blind test.

>If your results are anything like
> mine, the effects are not subtle.

The results of my tests were not subtle, as well. The results were
non-existent. I brought in some friends and they had the same results. One
of them doubted my test and did capacitor upgrades with a different amp. He
also came up with null results in bias-controlled test. We found a project
engineer at a well-known audio electronics firm across the state who also
claimed spectacular results. We did some blind tests with one of his
project, using a blind switchbox of his own design in case there was some
unknown problems with ours. Again, null results - everybody was guessing
randomly. Some years later one of our group did more tests like these in
Chicago. Again null results.

I therefore conclude that the "non-subtle" positive results are the result
of sighted bias.

> In fact, you don't even need to
> manipulate the balance control to perform the test. It will sound
> like stereo when it is in mono.

Try it in a bias controlled tests. The eyes can easily mislead the ears.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

dpierce@cartchunk.org wrote:
>
> In fact you absolutely have to ensure that the difference is due
> to a single variable only. Your "epxperiment" has so many confounding
> uncontrolled variables, you can draw any conclusion you want.

The odds are the conclusion is as you suggest: new caps are good stuff
in old speakers, but whether those caps should necessarily be polys or
better is another matter. Arny's suggestion that it is all expectation
bias is, frankly, off the wall, given the details of the test. At least
we have now addressed one of the concerns of the original post, which
was what can I do to upgrade my speakers? The take-away message from
assorted gurus and wannabees was threatening to be "nothing, buy new
speakers". In the absence of appropriate measuring gear, a cap upgrade
would seem to be a sound strategy. Depending on the speaker pedigree,
that could be unnecessary, but then again I have never seen a
mass-market speaker sold with a recommendation to take it in for a
service every X listening hours. A related issue is whether different
types of caps might differ in their functional life, however that is
defined.

On to inductors. I actually have received a pair of Spendor Preludes
with blown tweeters that I am looking at upgrading. They have a 3rd
order Xover at 3.5 KHz with a couple of iron-cores in there. Reasonably
enough, the issue arises of whether to spring for air-cores. I am
afraid to say that I defy anyone reading this thread to get a shred of
practical sense out of it, as people have been too busy shooting each
other down.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> Actually you've presented no details of the test at all.

*No* details? Hands up all these who didn't get the method and wouldn't
be able to replicate broadly what I did ...

> So aside from
> claiming powers of omniscience, there's really nothing to add except
that
> you did some sighted, non-time-synched, non-level-matched comparisons
of
> broken equipment and repaired equipment and as expected, credited it
all to
> some magic capacitor dielectrics.

No omniscience or magic was invoked at any point. It wasn't as rigorous
as a DBT, but then it didn't need to be. We got a conclusion - it
doesn't prove that polyprops beat electrolytics, but it shows that cap
upgrades are generally a good strategy in those particular
circumstances.

Level-matching might have actually defeated the purpose. A big part of
the perceived difference between channels concerned the levels of the
highs, and that subsequently affected resolution of detail. I know, you
want hard dB readings. Do we really have to go through that rigmarole,
given what most reasonable people would be able to glean at this point?

The terms "broken" and "damaged" speakers are getting tossed around a
lot in this thread. One thing I would add is that they sounded fine
originally, in the sense of no obvious distortion, and some nice,
mellow highs. :-) All I can say is there must be a heck of a lot of
damaged speakers sitting unrecognised in peoples' lounge-rooms.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Steven Sullivan wrote:
>
> > No omniscience or magic was invoked at any point. It wasn't as
rigorous
> > as a DBT, but then it didn't need to be. We got a conclusion - it
> > doesn't prove that polyprops beat electrolytics, but it shows that
cap
> > upgrades are generally a good strategy in those particular
> > circumstances.
>
> But then again, perhaps it only showed that fixing a broken speaker
is
> a good strategy, or that sighted comparison is a bad strategy.

Yep, I've suggested twice now that the main effect was probably due to
the new caps, but thanks for making time within your busy Internet
posting schedule to add that contribution. I'd say that *in these
particular circumstances* expectation bias was probably not the big
deal that you and Arny would like to make it out to be, on account of
the fact that the effects were fairly gross, and explicit steps were
taken to reduce auditory memory artefacts. Another aspect is that I'm
engaging in an informal discussion, not writing a scientific paper.

> Kruger suggested you should try the test with non-broken speakers and

> proper controls; Pierce suggest you try the test with
> non-broken speakers and proper controls.

Yep, and I would probably do the DBT thing if I was interested in
testing whether polys beat electrolytics, but I'm not up to that. The
polys simply went in for a few dollars more. It would be nice if they
had more longevity - something which hasn't had any discussion yet.

As far as proper controls go, I'd like to hear a bit more about how I
could have improved the time-synching on that test I described, as
demanded by Arny. Got any opinions there perhaps?

> Hands up all those who don't
> understand why these issues are valid.

Good, looks like everyone grasps the concept, as they should. Now for a
follow-up question: hands-up all those who know when a DBT is warranted
and when it is overkill?

> According to you, these were 'well-worn 20 year old speakers' , and
yes,
> a lot of *those* might not be performing quite up to spec.

If you're going to play the pedantic game, you need to get it right.
The speakers were described as used, not worn, not clapped-out, etc.
They looked fine and sounded fine.

Whilst I have your ear, would you care to apply your vast knowledge and
experience to that issue I previously raised, ie, should I be springing
for air-cores or is it all a load of hype?