The standard series are nitrogen filled, foil is same as in Cross cap (Tervakoski factory). To me, there is not difference in sound between the Cross and Standard. If you go up to Superior, they`re better for impulse applications as they use double foil. Indeed, very modestly priced for a double foil cap.
I almost always go with the Superior Z when I have drivers capable of higher resolution. They cost more but have MUCH better detail and definition than the less expensive ones so it is worth it to me.
I also use the CDE 940C smaller values for by-pass. Humble...says use them everywhere...well; call it what you want; they DO HELP! Seriously; I have even by-passed the very expensive Mundorf Silver/Oil caps on my super tweeter with a 0.47 uF CDE 940C and it even helped here. Simple clip leads in and out of circuit; I did a blind A/B test with some musician friends. Every one of them preferred the sound with these in the circuit; 100% of the time!
https://www.cde.com/resources/catalogs/940C.pdf
I also like the Clarity Cap ESA and CSA but the Superior Z just sounds the best to me.
I can't really tell much difference myself between the Standard Z and the Cross Cap; some like the Cross Cap better, some like the Standard Z better.
I also use the CDE 940C smaller values for by-pass. Humble...says use them everywhere...well; call it what you want; they DO HELP! Seriously; I have even by-passed the very expensive Mundorf Silver/Oil caps on my super tweeter with a 0.47 uF CDE 940C and it even helped here. Simple clip leads in and out of circuit; I did a blind A/B test with some musician friends. Every one of them preferred the sound with these in the circuit; 100% of the time!
https://www.cde.com/resources/catalogs/940C.pdf
I also like the Clarity Cap ESA and CSA but the Superior Z just sounds the best to me.
I can't really tell much difference myself between the Standard Z and the Cross Cap; some like the Cross Cap better, some like the Standard Z better.
The cap bypassing in speaker filters is a strange sport.
We all remember in the 90s that brands liked to add 0.1 uF everywhere. Nowadays people like Tony Gee at HHMH advises as low as 0.01 F.
My experience on tweeters is the lower the capacitance bypass the more thin the sound it gives with feeling of silkness and details but a the cost of weight & thickness. Imho one should be prudent , some speakers will sound in a first feeling with more details and light end note but no acurate sometimes. Really ask some care, I removed a styren and a teflon, both 0.1 on a tweeter because it was not so natural there... so nothing universal imho : soetimes it's beter, sometimes not...
I would like to understand what is the rule : 0.47 uF ?, 1 uF, 0.01 uF ? 0.1 uF ? 1/3 of the total capacitance not to break the main ? What about the diference of esr, DF between those // caps ? Current like to flow where it's the most easy, so what really happen ? Does the curent is seing the same close total capacitance, resistance and inductance when we bycap ??
We all remember in the 90s that brands liked to add 0.1 uF everywhere. Nowadays people like Tony Gee at HHMH advises as low as 0.01 F.
My experience on tweeters is the lower the capacitance bypass the more thin the sound it gives with feeling of silkness and details but a the cost of weight & thickness. Imho one should be prudent , some speakers will sound in a first feeling with more details and light end note but no acurate sometimes. Really ask some care, I removed a styren and a teflon, both 0.1 on a tweeter because it was not so natural there... so nothing universal imho : soetimes it's beter, sometimes not...
I would like to understand what is the rule : 0.47 uF ?, 1 uF, 0.01 uF ? 0.1 uF ? 1/3 of the total capacitance not to break the main ? What about the diference of esr, DF between those // caps ? Current like to flow where it's the most easy, so what really happen ? Does the curent is seing the same close total capacitance, resistance and inductance when we bycap ??
When comparing the Superior Z to the Standard Z or Cross Cap; it has better micro detail so it is my go to for mids and tweeters that are ALSO capable of micro detail when in series (HP circuit). When across the driver (LP circuit); it STILL helps improve micro detail (though not "quite" as obvious). I am basing this on direct comparisons where I can immediately clip lead from one type to the other. I guess you could describe these as open, engaging, neutral, natural, musical, etc, etc, etc. They don't seem to do anything wrong at all in this price range. Other capacitors at this price range and lower just don't sound as true or honest to my listening tastes anyway.
Studies have been done. On this site, with some searching. Spectral analyses on dozens of capacitors showing the impedance alone, then with various bypasses.. and different capacities from the same model, different models and types.
Not to discourage looking at these, but the issues tend to be above the audible band, typically way above.
It is possible to calculate the impedance of two series RCs in parallel, but consider that the reactance alone of 100nF at 20kHz is 80ohms.
I have added only a 0.1 uF bypass capacitor before just as an experiment and noticed improvements. Then I added a 0.01 uF also in parallel; it does ALSO make noticeable improvements for sure. I have tried many values; many people argue this and disagree. I know I can tell the improvements. As for rules of values? I can't say. If you have a super tweeter for example; the capacitor values may be quite small for just the highest octave so you wouldn't want to add too much "extra" capacitance in parallel. For regular tweeters and mids; it may not matter so much. I have done 0.1 uF and 0.01 uF together. I have also done 0.47 uF and 0.047 uF together. For the highest frequencies; 0.1 or 0.15 with 0.01 or 0.015 would be my first choices. For the lower frequencies; I haven't used anything larger than 0.47 with 0.047 together. I don't see any reason 0.22 and 0.022 together or 0.33 and 0.033 together also wouldn't work well.
My thoughts are what we are doing is giving the very fastest rise times less capacitance with by-passing capacitors so that even the "perfect" square wave signal is not "rounded off" with the leading or falling "edge" as it could be without a much smaller capacitance. Have I ever done any verifiable laboratory experiments with high end test equipment here to prove or dis-prove this? NO; short answer; just going again with what I have read elsewhere and tried it for myself. This is sure to get some heated discussions going!
My thoughts are what we are doing is giving the very fastest rise times less capacitance with by-passing capacitors so that even the "perfect" square wave signal is not "rounded off" with the leading or falling "edge" as it could be without a much smaller capacitance. Have I ever done any verifiable laboratory experiments with high end test equipment here to prove or dis-prove this? NO; short answer; just going again with what I have read elsewhere and tried it for myself. This is sure to get some heated discussions going!
In every case where I am trying to determine if adding or deleting a component makes an audible difference; I have clip leads to an external crossover circuit. I can immediately switch back and forth while listening to very well known (high quality) recordings. I am right at the drivers so very near field. I do this over and over again MANY times to confirm. This is when I am fine tuning a crossover BEFORE I make my design final. THEN I solder everything up and mount it. For personal use; I usually just keep the crossover board external (mounted to the rear of the box). I do sometimes invite my musician friends and family over for critical listening and evaluations. They can also tell a difference when I do these "tweaks". I do this blind A/B for them without my comments so they don't what I'm doing or why. I then ask them which do they prefer; I also repeat this many times with various recordings. To some with un-trained ears; non-musicians that aren't quite so critical; these changes may be barely noticeable. To my ears; the improvements are well worth the extra effort. If you were to do a frequency sweep and try an FR plot with measurement equipment; these small changes would probably not even show any differences. (I would call this subtle but still immediately obvious to me). Works for me and I'll stick with my methods; not for everyone again for sure but I have nothing better to do in my retirement years...ha ha ha ....well, drink beer and chase women; that is more of a younger man's thing; not so much for me anymore these days...ha ha ha...
B&W-802-Upgrade
Please read through this; I do tend to trust Troels judgement and logic; he and I have many similar thoughts and reasonings behind what we say and do; especially when it comes to LISTENING tests as opposed to just MEASUREMENT tests ALONE. My point again? Not everyone here will agree but when I can CLEARLY hear a difference by experimentation and tweaking; I will go with my musician's ears vs my engineer's and technician's theory. Well; if you were to dig deep enough; the small differences people like Troels and myself and others keep discussing...COULD be proven in a lab with the appropriate test and measurement set up and equipment. Common; everyday PC based tests and measurements are probably not sophisticated enough to measure or distinguish these minute but important characteristics. I could be wrong about the PC based tools; I claim to be totally new to the newest PC based technologies. I can say for sure though that all of the equipment I used throughout my 40+ year career was the very best available at the time. I seriously doubt anything we would use at home has the precision and accuracy required to flush out these very minor differences. Again; I plead ignorance to the SOTA in home based test and measurement tools, hardware and software...
Please read through this; I do tend to trust Troels judgement and logic; he and I have many similar thoughts and reasonings behind what we say and do; especially when it comes to LISTENING tests as opposed to just MEASUREMENT tests ALONE. My point again? Not everyone here will agree but when I can CLEARLY hear a difference by experimentation and tweaking; I will go with my musician's ears vs my engineer's and technician's theory. Well; if you were to dig deep enough; the small differences people like Troels and myself and others keep discussing...COULD be proven in a lab with the appropriate test and measurement set up and equipment. Common; everyday PC based tests and measurements are probably not sophisticated enough to measure or distinguish these minute but important characteristics. I could be wrong about the PC based tools; I claim to be totally new to the newest PC based technologies. I can say for sure though that all of the equipment I used throughout my 40+ year career was the very best available at the time. I seriously doubt anything we would use at home has the precision and accuracy required to flush out these very minor differences. Again; I plead ignorance to the SOTA in home based test and measurement tools, hardware and software...
... "It must be tried and the overall voicing of a speaker system depends on listening tests of a wide range of musical genres trying to balance power response with a proper tonal balance." ...
This is EXACTLY what I have been trying to say and do...an excerpt from the above Troels mods to an older B&W crossover...
This is EXACTLY what I have been trying to say and do...an excerpt from the above Troels mods to an older B&W crossover...
...and here's another quote from Troels's site, from a comparative test made on a mini-monitor using the same filter design, matched to 0.5dB. One XO built from cheap inductors, resistors & MKP caps, the other with Tritec aircore coils, MOX resistors and Mundorf Supreme capacitors.
...and another one:
Not discounting -I've had an odd experience where inserting Superior Z caps threw the balance of a speaker out when they were inserted in place of the original regular MKPs. At least, so a guitarist friend said; I struggle to hear it myself, but I wasn't able to make a direct comparison as I wasn't the one doing it (or advocating one way or the other). And I've used Superior Z caps & Mundorf's Evo Oils for more expensive designs in the past, mainly 'just because' and the fact that the extra expense wasn't particularly significant relative to the drivers etc. Thing is, they were locked in in the design stage: I specified them at that point and forgot about it.
...and another one:
Not discounting -I've had an odd experience where inserting Superior Z caps threw the balance of a speaker out when they were inserted in place of the original regular MKPs. At least, so a guitarist friend said; I struggle to hear it myself, but I wasn't able to make a direct comparison as I wasn't the one doing it (or advocating one way or the other). And I've used Superior Z caps & Mundorf's Evo Oils for more expensive designs in the past, mainly 'just because' and the fact that the extra expense wasn't particularly significant relative to the drivers etc. Thing is, they were locked in in the design stage: I specified them at that point and forgot about it.
Last edited:
It may just come down simply to personal tastes; kind of like subjective art; what do you personally prefer? I know in my own testing; I have found the Superior Z to be the most neutral; meaning; adding little coloration; taking little away from what I perceive as the most natural balance. In my current build; I have a mix of Solen MKP, Clarity Cap ESA, CSA, CDE 940C, Mundorf Oil/Silver, Audyn Q4, Jantzen Cross Cap, Standard Z and Superior Z ALL!
Ye gods, you're more dedicated than I am. By and large, I stay with regular MKPs, usually Jantzen CrossCaps because they're close tolerance & inexpensive. I don't swap components any more for equivalents of the same value, I can't hear enough difference to justify it; I just lock in whatever I intend in the design stage along with the topology & that's it, beyond adjustments purely related to level padding, transfer functions &c.
As noted, that doesn't mean I entirely discount some things; for high end systems I'll sometimes design it including a pricier cap for critical components 'just because' (usually because it's for somebody else & they expect it). There are a couple of things I like to do with filters that I use as my 'signature'; I suppose it's an alternative to expensive components.
As noted, that doesn't mean I entirely discount some things; for high end systems I'll sometimes design it including a pricier cap for critical components 'just because' (usually because it's for somebody else & they expect it). There are a couple of things I like to do with filters that I use as my 'signature'; I suppose it's an alternative to expensive components.
Last edited:
Yes, but I am retired and have nothing better to do...literally! I have boxes full of parts from past designs and builds. I need to keep my brain and hands both busy. When I am starting something new; I usually start with the Audyn Q4 because they are very inexpensive and Parts Express has most values in stock so I can get parts in just a very few days. If I am using higher end drivers; fully capable of micro-detail (pick your own words here); I usually end up with the higher end X/O parts as well. It doesn't make sense to put a $30 capacitor on a $20 tweeter. My Fostex T90A ST's have two each Mundorf Silver/Oil plus a CDE 940C all 3 caps. in parallel. That's over $75 US in capacitors PER TWEETER! BUT, these tweeters do what "I" need them to do; very high output but ALSO very clean, articulate and accurate. The Fostex sells for $215 US each. No other tweeter has satisfied me more so; in my particular case; very well worth the extra cost and effort here...NOT recommended for everyone obviously!
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.