Any chance you could answer one of my questions?
BTW what does "There are lots of posts here about perceived speaker performance improvement by replacing crossover capacitors with more expensive ones. Generally, I believe most of these so called improvements are nothing more than confirmation bias." mean?
BTW what does "There are lots of posts here about perceived speaker performance improvement by replacing crossover capacitors with more expensive ones. Generally, I believe most of these so called improvements are nothing more than confirmation bias." mean?
Sorry to see that education is such a bother for you classicalfan, I suppose when one “knows” something there’s not much sense in mucking up ones bias with other possibilities. 
Wolf, you knew Jeff Bagby fairly well right? Without putting words in his mouth what were his views on the subject at hand?
Wolf, you knew Jeff Bagby fairly well right? Without putting words in his mouth what were his views on the subject at hand?
I second this. Have you ever done a listening A/B test between a cheap cap that normally comes in a speaker crossover and something like a Clarity CSA cap? Replace the tweeter cap in one of them then listen to both speakers. It would also be useful to measure both caps to see that they are operating correctly since the cheap caps are, as you stated, usually +/- 20%. The goal here is to see if we hear a difference in caps that doesn't have to do with them being out of spec, but rather due to their construction.
Very possibly. OTOH, the question of the thread title is straightforward enough to answer in one sense at least, & presumably everybody would agree with this particular aspect: 'yes, if the original capacitors are no longer functioning as intended or originally installed'. What you replace them with and why are slightly different questions of course.
Last edited:
I think it's very important to establish whether this is indeed the topic at hand before passing judgement on Jeff Bagby's opinions. This, I feel would involve showing whether such a distortion as described is a real thing.
@ Scottmoose, indeed.. but then it shouldn't take 50 odd posts to say yes
They're both capacitors, they're either on target valuewise or not, the only other element or characteristic that could have an effect is the ESR (if it was electrolytic), and an inherent inductance (anything up to 100nH.)
With that being said, at the end of the day a capacitor is a capacitor, with a value of capacitance. (nothing more), this capacitance will have it's effect in the filter circuit. There's no magic sauce characteristic that can be added apart from materials used, but it's still gonna be a cap when all said and done.
I kind of said yes in post #2, but my qualifier didn't go down too well.@ Scottmoose, indeed.. but then it shouldn't take 50 odd posts to say yes
Regarding the electrons dont care what the dielectric is...
Think about what an electrolytic cap is. It charges in one direction only. To make a so called NP electrolytic - the kind of electrolytic I assume is typically used in an Xover - they put two caps back to back in the same can.
So with an AC signal across, one cap charges one way, the other cap charges when the cycle reverses. Who knows what the reversed bias cap is going through while the other is charging. They use the series formula to come up with the resultant value of the cap constructed in this way - but is it really - considering one or the other is reverse biased on every cycle?
Who knows what the transition as the two elements switch back 'n forth looks like, nevermind sounds like.
To me, replacing the electrical situation with an element that by design and construction truly doesnt care which way it charges - the intellectual based benefit is obvious.
FAIK, the electrlytic combo settles into linear operation in a few seconds of conducting current and it's just a matter of if you can stand that first few seconds while it settles in.
My own solution is two-way with DSP and no caps or coils. Speaking of coils, the RL high pass has been used with sensitive tweeters to eliminate a cap completely, yet be realizable in the analog domain. The R part burns power so it's not so elegant; but someone designed it I assume based on their perception of value in doing so.
Think about what an electrolytic cap is. It charges in one direction only. To make a so called NP electrolytic - the kind of electrolytic I assume is typically used in an Xover - they put two caps back to back in the same can.
So with an AC signal across, one cap charges one way, the other cap charges when the cycle reverses. Who knows what the reversed bias cap is going through while the other is charging. They use the series formula to come up with the resultant value of the cap constructed in this way - but is it really - considering one or the other is reverse biased on every cycle?
Who knows what the transition as the two elements switch back 'n forth looks like, nevermind sounds like.
To me, replacing the electrical situation with an element that by design and construction truly doesnt care which way it charges - the intellectual based benefit is obvious.
FAIK, the electrlytic combo settles into linear operation in a few seconds of conducting current and it's just a matter of if you can stand that first few seconds while it settles in.
My own solution is two-way with DSP and no caps or coils. Speaking of coils, the RL high pass has been used with sensitive tweeters to eliminate a cap completely, yet be realizable in the analog domain. The R part burns power so it's not so elegant; but someone designed it I assume based on their perception of value in doing so.
Last edited:
@ Scottmoose, indeed.. but then it shouldn't take 50 odd posts to say yes
No argument there.
Yeah, but we are not talking about the hearing system. That's a completely different subject. We are talking about the information delivered by the speakers.
And if you think yours are doing a poor job of it then perhaps you should do something about it. I think mine are doing a phenomenal job as I have already expressed and see no reason whatsoever to screw them up with changes.
Last edited:
I think what I have said is very clear and really don't know how to explain it any better to you. Perhaps you can describe what part of it you don't understand and I'll try to give you an answer..
But we should be because we are discussing what differences people perceive. The processes involved in auditory object identification are complex and, to a degree, unknown, but there is evidence that some of the cues involved are very subtle, particularly the temporal ones, and it's quite possible small timing errors due to component non-linearities are responsible for the "smearing" and "focus" issues people describe.
I’d just like to know how someone who has admittedly not even tried what he preaches against but yet stands on the soapbox thumbing his nose at the likes of Jean Hiraga, Walter Jung, Richard Marsh, John Curl….etc. ? You must have some awesome credentials classical fan.
As I have already said above I am totally thrilled with my Piccolo speakers. Particularly with the classical music I listen to.
So why in the world would I spend time and money tinkering with different brands of crossover capacitors when the science tells me there is little if any chance of it making a difference. And I'm not looking for a difference anyhow.
But importantly, if the camp that supports the idea that various capacitor brands sound different is correct, then I have just as much chance of making thing worse as making them better.
So if some people think that different capacitor brands can be heard and want to spend their time on it that's up to them. I've got better things to spend my time on.
That's all fine. No argument there. Now just explain how any of it can be influenced the brand or type of capacitor in a crossover.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.