[prerich]

Good move, indeed! I invested too much in my room ( begin sounds of migrating toward DIY )

Sent from my iPad using HTShack

Power, unlimited power

!

Once more, the DIY will rule the galaxy. And, we shall have peace.

 

[Lumen]

You cannot look at passive prices and brand names and judge their audibility. This is done by measurement, then critical listening, making changes, more measuring/listening... wash, rinse, repeat. That is AFTER talented engineers design a rough outline for the crossover, via sophisticated software. This heavy lifting has already been done.

I believe you can extrapolate this design regimen to other electronics categories such as outboard DACs, phono preamps, etc. Whether aftermarket or OEM, this regimen is standard operating procedure for many high-end designers. This labor-of-love accounts for some of the higher cost of boutique gear. Some audio enthusiasts embrace the subtle results, while others dismiss them (topic for another thread). Why would you pay top dollar for a robust, well-executed design and then potentially ruin the results by second-guessing the inherent engineering?

 

[tesseract]

I believe you can extrapolate this design regimen to other electronics categories such as outboard DACs, phono preamps, etc. Whether aftermarket or OEM, this regimen is standard operating procedure for many high-end designers. This labor-of-love accounts for some of the higher cost of boutique gear. Some audio enthusiasts embrace the subtle results, while others dismiss them (topic for another thread). Why would you pay top dollar for a robust, well-executed design and then potentially ruin the results by second-guessing the inherent engineering?

Right you are, Lou. In fact, I've read that third parties have put some of these "hot rodded" electronics on the test bench only to find the performance has been compromised.

 

[Amdenis2000]

If "upgrading" your crossovers would really make any difference dont you think SVS would have done so already in the initial design? Were not talking about a fly by night company trying to cut corners, SVS would not skimp on that area.
I disagree with your uncle.

As a studio owner and music lover for many years, I have upgraded a few crossovers— including most recently, the SVS Ultra Towers. The issue related to using quality components that replace the roughly $60 in cross-over components (latest estimate based on my sources as of 2022) that SVS uses in the Ultra towers, is the margin they are working with. SVS spends a fair amount on cabinet and drivers, leaving little for the crossovers. Film capacitors, air-core (especially on the mids and highs) and better resistors (NON-Sand-cast) made a HUGE difference.

The SVS Ultra towers had cheap electrolytic capitors, iron core inductors, cheap aluminum wiring and sand cast resistors. ALL of them needed to be replaced. While $1,000 per speaker may seem like a lot, I can tell you that even much more expensive audiophile and studio monitors (Focal, ATC, etc) use low cost components of substantially inferior quality to what you can replace them with. The issue is that the margin they work with on $1,000/per speaker pricing, is that the underlying markup is based is roughly 400-500%, meaning that they would have to mark-up a set of high quality compents that cost at least $450/speaker to around $1,800 for each speaker just for the crossovers.

While the drivers of the SVS are really decent, and the cabinet work and finish are excellent, using high quality audio-grade crossover compenents like the claim in the marketing gloss when they assert “no expense was spared”, would mean that they would have to double their customer pricing. Focal (Trio-11’s), which cost us about $9,000 a pair had similarly low-cost components, which benefitted GREATLY also from about $350/monitor cross-over replacements.

The audible difference is that the SVS Ultra towers now are better than our prior mains, which cost about $14K, and the crossover upgraded Focal‘s now blow away virtually any studio near/mid-field monitors, regardless of price. Here is one of many video’s on the subject, which may be helpful.

 

[Amdenis2000]

Well so the other thing my uncle did say was the capacitors were large and that the resisters were heavy duty rated with the specs they offered.

He was actually quite stunned at the robust parts and mentinoed that by going to audiophile grade parts would cost an arm and a leg to do to get the same ratings.

Actually, large and “robust” parts do not mean high quality audio— especially in the case of most speakers that work on thin margins and requirements for 400-500% mark-up from cost. The SVS use iron-core inductors, electrolytic capacitors, cheap aluminum wiring and sand cast resistors— all of which are the opposite of high-quality when it comes to audio. Air core inductors (especially for the mids and high drivers), film resistors appropriate to the drivers and ODAM or metal film caps combine to make for serious audible improvements. The monitors themselves are beautiful, the drivers are very good and the cabinets are solid and well constructed. They are very worth upgrading if you want monitors that compete with $10K+ alternatives in most respects. This video may be useful. BTW, I had upgraded my SVS Ultra towers last year. They BLOW PEOPLE AWAY now.

 

[willis7469]

Haha Danny…what a quack.

 

[Amdenis2000]

Haha Danny…what a quack.

I assume you are inferring that his assertions that differences in capacitors, inductor and resistor tyles and architectures have no substantive bearing on audible results…? That person is simply one among many researchers, audiophiles, engineers and others who have validated the same things, which is that they do have a significant effect on the signal path and resulting sound. Here are some other resources that you may find more to your liking.

Replacing Passive Components to Improve Sound Quality – Bext

https://www.humblehomemadehifi.com/download/INFO_ClarityCap_Technical_Report.pdf