• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). There are daily reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Speaker recommendation in view of brand's cost cutting

Everett T

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 2, 2020
Messages
372
Likes
246
DIY is just not for everyone. I prefer a product made by someone who actually knows what they're doing.
I'm also aware that the Revels measure great and are generally well built, but the crossover being made from penny parts is simply a fact (that may not have any relevance to the sound, but that's not my point).
It's hard to wrap my head around wanting the most expensive components when there is no audible benefit. From Bagby to Murphy, designers will only spec if there is a clear advantage.
 

captainbeefheart

Active Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2022
Messages
276
Likes
357
I think we need to add some perspective into this thread for the OP.

These passive crossovers are very simple filters that include very simple components, like capacitors. A capacitor is nothing more than thin metal plates that are separated by a thin film dielectric and rolled up with leads sticking out. That's it. When a company makes millions of them in a production facility the fact is they only cost so much. Do you want them to just increase the cost to make you feel better about buying them?

I know they may seem like magic to some, but they are really very simple components and do not cost much money at all to produce. Electrons don't know if it's an audio signal going through them, they don't care. When small companies go into business to make "audio" capacitors they like to use exotic materials for no other reason to set them apart, some don't even use exotic materials. But the fact they are not WIMA or Rubycon making millions of these things which keeps the cost down, these small "audio" capacitor companies need to increase the cost because of their business model and not because they are better performing, often times they perform worse. Now consumers like the OP don't see "audio" capacitors inside that cost more money and think that the company is installing inferior parts when that's just not the case. The worst case scenario you will see is possibly an electrolytic rated for only 2000 hours at maximum ripple current and 85°C operating temperature. At lower currents and lower temperatures these caps will last far longer than 2000 hours, more like 20,000 hours. So you may have to replace that cap in 30 years because electrolytic caps do have a finite lifespan. But as I said, it's not worth going with film here because often the higher ESR is wanted to dampen resonance. You of course could add a 1 ohm resistor in series with the film cap, so the only advantage is lifespan. Finding someone to solder in caps every 30 years seems fine to me, most of you won't even have the same speakers for 30 years and purchase new.

Again we are back to judging parts by only the price and nothing else. That is not a valid comparison. If you were in line for a coffee, you get to the front of the line and they give you two choices of coffee, both from the same coffee beans and percolator but in different cups, one costs $5 the other costs $1, which will you choose?
 
Last edited:

fineMen

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2021
Messages
453
Likes
149
Back to the engineers cutting corners, you do realize us older engineers didn't have to deal with this when we were in this field 40-50 years ago.
Because the product was needed, was put to use and expected to deliver a benefit. Today the product has become a fetish. And what the o/p was talking about was just that, making a--due to lack of insight, magical fetish out of a machine. And it was a bit like eating in a really fancy restaurant, where food is so much about the decor. Picking it, making a mess from the artful arrangement, chewing it, biting it down to little "parts", destroying it. For no other reason than that, because anyway You'll never get full, or satisfied respectively. Maybe drunk, but ...

It is all about the arrangement: (copyright applies): https://i.pinimg.com/736x/10/af/f0/...5db--dessert-presentation-dessert-plating.jpg

How well I know how these audiophiles think about all the stuff they see, and do not understand. "Better parts" ...
 
Last edited:

captainbeefheart

Active Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2022
Messages
276
Likes
357
That dessert is pretty but I'd have no problems destroying it for the greater good of my satisfaction :D

Fetish is a good way to put it. These audiophool publications like the pretty pictures of rare expensive 'internals' that 99% of the consumers will never see because they don't disassemble their equipment, but knowing it has something 'rare' and 'expensive' inside is certainly a fetish.

I just boils down to status, it's a club that entitled people need to be a part of, they want 'the best' even though they don't even know what the best is technically, they just deduce it down to price and if it's expensive then it must be better and the bonus is you are now in the 'elitist' club of component bling bling.

I don't think the OP realizes that profit margin is set, if Revel MSRP is what it is with the current passive components in the balance network they aren't going to reduce profits to install parts that make no difference. If they want to cater to the market that wants component bling bling inside then they will just increase the MSRP cost to maintain the same profit margin, you'll just pay more for the bling. The OP is naive in that he feels they should just cut the profit margin in order to satisfy his 'fetish'. That's not how it works.
 

Everett T

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 2, 2020
Messages
372
Likes
246
Does this screen all premium components and yet it's from a woofer section of a very popular speaker. (Ignore the tweeter and midrange that I got with the pic )


Deleted pic
See other pic in my next post for accuracy
 
Last edited:

captainbeefheart

Active Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2022
Messages
276
Likes
357
........I only see the midrange.....................

Woofer circuits typically don't have high pass CL filters ;)

We need to see some low pass LC filters
 
Last edited:

Everett T

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 2, 2020
Messages
372
Likes
246
........I only see the midrange.....................

Woofer circuits typically don't have high pass CL filters ;)

We need to see some low pass LC filters
Lol, you're correct. I thought I cut the other off, now excuse the others. The midrange would have worked as the example.
20200806_151627.jpg
 

captainbeefheart

Active Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2022
Messages
276
Likes
357
Lol, you're correct. I thought I cut the other off, now excuse the others. The midrange would have worked as the example.
View attachment 207036

For the woofer board I don't see the benefit of a film capacitor, is it going to bother people that the electrolytic may dry out in 30-50 years?

I am hopeful that the company that makes these networks has tested them for resonance. I am not certain of the inductor value but ~2.5mH is typical with 82uF, this puts the resonant frequency around 350Hz. Doesn't matter if the inductor is +/- a little, the frequency will just shift around the 350Hz figure and still be in the audible range. We found the ESR of the electrolytic (1-2ohms) dampens it nicely, win-win you don't need extra parts to dampen. It does appear that there is a resistor in series with the 82uF shunt capacitor so that's probably going to dampen the resonance which might be the intention of it. More parts, larger footprint, increased price, just to have the capacitor last longer? I suppose it's an upgrade so long as the resonance is damped.
 

Everett T

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 2, 2020
Messages
372
Likes
246
For the woofer board I don't see the benefit of a film capacitor, is it going to bother people that the electrolytic may dry out in 30-50 years?

I am hopeful that the company that makes these networks has tested them for resonance. I am not certain of the inductor value but ~2.5mH is typical with 82uF, this puts the resonant frequency around 350Hz. Doesn't matter if the inductor is +/- a little, the frequency will just shift around the 350Hz figure and still be in the audible range. We found the ESR of the electrolytic (1-2ohms) dampens it nicely, win-win you don't need extra parts to dampen. It does appear that there is a resistor in series with the 82uF shunt capacitor so that's probably going to dampen the resonance which might be the intention of it. More parts, larger footprint, increased price, just to have the capacitor last longer? I suppose it's an upgrade so long as the resonance is damped.
It's not an upgrade, only the tweeter circuit had an upgrade and the I was assured by the designer that it wouldn't be audible, just more me having piece of mind with no illusions. Agian, there were no upgrades done with the rest of the circuits and no premium parts used relative what could have been, to the OPs concern.
 

captainbeefheart

Active Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2022
Messages
276
Likes
357
It's not an upgrade, only the tweeter circuit had an upgrade and the I was assured by the designer that it wouldn't be audible, just more me having piece of mind with no illusions. Agian, there were no upgrades done with the rest of the circuits and no premium parts used relative what could have been, to the OPs concern.

Okay I think I understand.

The midrange board had Solen instead of Audyn? So you swapped one brand of MKP for another brand of MKP? Both are rated for 400v, I don't see the why the change was made still. Are you saying you prefer to see Audyn brands over Solen brands? If so why? Was it because of subjective capacitor listening tests? Or did you compare datasheets specs or first hand measurements that show Audyn is better?

Just trying to understand the reason behind the change.
 

fineMen

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2021
Messages
453
Likes
149
That dessert is pretty but I'd have no problems destroying it for the greater good of my satisfaction :D

Fetish is a good way to put it. These audiophool publications like the pretty pictures of rare expensive 'internals' that 99% of the consumers will never see because they don't disassemble their equipment, but knowing it has something 'rare' and 'expensive' inside is certainly a fetish.

I just boils down to status, it's a club that entitled people need to be a part of, they want 'the best' even though they don't even know what the best is technically, they just deduce it down to price and if it's expensive then it must be better and the bonus is you are now in the 'elitist' club of component bling bling.

I don't think the OP realizes that profit margin is set, if Revel MSRP is what it is with the current passive components in the balance network they aren't going to reduce profits to install parts that make no difference. If they want to cater to the market that wants component bling bling inside then they will just increase the MSRP cost to maintain the same profit margin, you'll just pay more for the bling. The OP is naive in that he feels they should just cut the profit margin in order to satisfy his 'fetish'. That's not how it works.
Spot on, Cpt.!
 
Top Bottom