I've already heard the NCore and it has the ability to work out the details well. With the Marantz, as with all similar amplifiers of this type, which I was also able to hear some of them on my speakers, I suspect that it cannot reproduce the detail.
What is the technical background that leads you to this assumption?
As already mentioned the damping factor is not important for the tweeter.
I am not an expert in electronics, but the slew rate should not play a role due to the low voltage (around 1-2V). Since it is a "classic" amplifier (cut-off frequency -3dB at 100kHz), the same applies to the "gain-bandwidth product" because of the low voltage.
So what is the reason?
I have never read anywhere in the world that it has been said that with amplifier XY a capacitor upgrade will unfortunately be inaudible.
The opposite is true, a capacitor upgrade should supposedly immediately result in a dramatic sound improvement without any restrictions!
Really smart high-end capacitor seller and reviewer should update their websites and add the words "If your amplifier is able to follow the improved signal" everywhere
Which is the right measurement method to show the differences?
For this reason I used the acoustic measurement. This corresponds one to one with reality. There is no "secret" vibration of the air molecules that has not been discovered so far.
The sound pressure resolution of the measuring microphone exceeds that of the human ear - this was shown in the first part, see
2) Capacitors - low capacitance deviations.
If someone lends me a high-end capacitor I'm willing to repeat a few measurements.
I could for example increase the resolution in the time domain extremely to see if there is any change (which I don't expect).
Examination of other types of tweeters (another possible bottleneck)?
Have you ever read somewhere that a capacitor upgrade was made dependent on the tweeter used? I have not.
A capacitor upgrade is said to always work, from expensive high-end speakers to cheap DIY speaker kits.
Expensive high-end capacitors supposedly lead to clearly perceptible sound improvements even in cheap tweeters where the voice coil floats in ferrofluid.
So a definite no, it's not because of the specific tweeter that I measured no difference in the audible frequency range between "normal" film capacitors and an expensive high-end capacitor.
the main application of the EMX-7150 microphone is the measurement in buildings to optimize the room acoustics, studio acoustics or the home theater (see also product data sheet).
OMG you are right, all those years wasted on useless measurements...
What does it
say on the website:
There is really nothing about near field measurements of tweeters to analyze capacitors
Pardon the irony, but this is simply BS.
According to my research, for more precise laboratory measurements (including results in phase, time, impulse transmission, delay, etc.) of loudspeakers, it should be at least an Earthworks M23.
(German WWW Sources: Jochen Schulz Sound Engineering & Jobst-Audio)
Just two minutes of research and you get evidence that even the
Earthworks M50, for example, has slightly higher distortion than the EMX-7150 - which is not unimportant for measurements with high sound levels, such as my capacitor measurements at 100-110dB. Both microphones deliver impeccable results.
Regarding noise the M50 with 23.1dB(A) is slightly superior to the EMX-7150 with 26.3dB(A) - but this is not important for near field measurements where the sound pressure level is around 100-110dB.
What are the technical, fact-based reasons for your statements and conclusions? More expensive is always better, is not one of them.
Why should it not be possible to measure sound changes caused by a capacitor upgrade with an EMX-7150, but it is with an Earthworks M23?