AR90 Crossover Recapping - Taming the UMR

[ra.ra]

On September 4, 2017 at 0:56 PM, ra.ra said:

....how does cross-talk present itself in a measurable ... manner...?

Thanks for the referenced study, Carl. I guess I did ask about measurements, but since I was hoping not to be dragged down that rabbit hole, I will ask my question seeking a more subjective response. Can anyone describe the perceptible audible performance differences that result from these "improved" coil orientations versus the original co-planar layouts? And, if there is a noticeable superior performance resulting from the revised placements, can it be assumed that multi-coil AR speakers that have not undergone this "correction" are not living up to their full potential?    

[harry398]

I dont believe anyone could really articulate what you are looking to find ra.ra.  

I believe what this is about is proper set of electronic equipment eliminating electronic crosstalk or things like that.

 

[ra.ra]

1 hour ago, harry398 said:

 

I dont believe anyone could really articulate what you are looking to find

You're probably right, harry398, and I'm just trying to find someone to address this notion from a qualitative experiential perspective rather than solely from a quantitative set of laboratory data points. I very much like to obsess over comparative numbers as much as the next geeky dweeb, but as one sage advisor often noted, "It's all about the music." So my question boils down to: Unless someone can identify audible differences, why is anyone fussing with this in the first place?    

Until I am convinced that there might be noticeable audio improvements as a result of various tweeks or substitutions (new caps, new foams, functioning controls, etc.), my own re-build projects tend to focus on two other areas that are important to me: 1) improved visual aesthetics (cabs, grilles, etc.); and 2) improved build qualities (wiring, connectors, terminals, straps, etc.). For both of these areas, the term "improved" relates only to my own personal preferences, and is not meant to suggest an improvement for anyone else's speakers. 

 

[AR surround]

On 9/5/2017 at 8:21 PM, ra.ra said:

You're probably right, harry398, and I'm just trying to find someone to address this notion from a qualitative experiential perspective rather than solely from a quantitative set of laboratory data points. I very much like to obsess over comparative numbers as much as the next geeky dweeb, but as one sage advisor often noted, "It's all about the music." So my question boils down to: Unless someone can identify audible differences, why is anyone fussing with this in the first place?    

Until I am convinced that there might be noticeable audio improvements as a result of various tweeks or substitutions (new caps, new foams, functioning controls, etc.), my own re-build projects tend to focus on two other areas that are important to me: 1) improved visual aesthetics (cabs, grilles, etc.); and 2) improved build qualities (wiring, connectors, terminals, straps, etc.). For both of these areas, the term "improved" relates only to my own personal preferences, and is not meant to suggest an improvement for anyone else's speakers. 

 

ra.ra, it would be possible to do a qualitative experiment if someone outboards the crossovers and lays them out in a manner that makes changing/maneuvering one component at a time relatively easy.   However, removing drivers and getting in there with a soldering iron over and over again is simply asking for eventual trouble.  So most of us are limited to making a handful of changes at the same time and speculating if and how each change may contribute to what we then hear.    Frankly, I have no idea if reorienting the coils in my AR9 or AR90 made any difference; but I am extremely happy with the rebuilt speakers as they now exist.

[MrJames]

I bought my 9's new in 1980. They always respond to better upstream electronics, better than I could ever feed them. Put the best equipment you can afford in front of them and concentrate  on the best room placement.  Fretting over the best caps or coil orientation, oriented grain ofc wire and binding posts are unlikely to yield as large a gain in the quality of what we hear from them. These were engineered very well to use parts of the day to a price point. They still compare well to many comparably priced speakers today. 40 years later. I rebuilt the crossovers with good affordable caps and did a refoam on 12's and 8's. reoiled cabinets and resealed well, reclothed the grills without the chrome edges, and didn't try to outguess the engineers that built these. Perhaps my bad, I wish I could give them the room they deserve and all the unbridaled power they can take. But I have maximized the placement and worked on room treatment. By far the most improvement in what I can hear from them, ( although I've lost most of my top octave hearing) these things can still amaze me. And keep me from running down the rabbit hole of constant upgrades in my system. I LOVE the music! These can still move me...

[frankmarsi]

Wonderful to hear a new member speak this way. ""They always respond to better upstream electronics"" ,  ""give them the room they deserve and all the unbridaled power they can take.""  

Those are some truly excellent words and a mind-set to live by!

Some folks are not concerned with such things and will use lowly receivers and frightfully low power amplification while not paying any heed to placement and other majorly important factors. Better quality input sources are pivotal as is the capability of higher 'head-room' afforded by high power.

Separates and high power afford the most flexibility and render the best sound overall. Couple that to a concerted effort in correct room placement and one can be closer to the 'real-thing'.

P.S. AR surround a wonderful experiment and facts that you've presented at the onset here. I'm not sure how I missed your original post. I was probably listening to music.