Quote:
We're just waiting for your next reply, probably something involving making fun of someone's name ... knock off the playground behavior, the name calling, the condescending dismissal of others and their ideas.

The mods over at Gearslutz have the right idea, starting right after this post:

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/mastering...tml#post3106691

Scroll down a bit to see the extent of the moderation.

I'd like to see more of that around here. Personal attacks accomplish nothing except showing that you are too ignorant of the subject matter to contribute anything useful.

--Ethan

Great thread. You and Lupo do an excellent job.

Plus I learned about dBBananas.

Quote:
Personally, I think you're stressing over something inconsequential. The caps in your speakers are old but apparently they are working. That should be the test of whether a cap needs to be replaced in a three decade old speaker of this general calibre. In all likelyhood you'd see it clearly if those caps were leaking. They've probably drifted from spec over the years but they probably started life with a fairly high tolerance from spec to begin with. I say play the speakers and enjoy what you have.

It's possible that the caps have drifted in value, changing the speaker response. Replacing with a film cap would be more stable but which exact value is a good match for a higher toleranced OEM part, that maintains the intended design of the original system? The caps may need replacing, but to me it's not a plug-and-play replacement in general, although it may work in this case. It's not clear without measurements followed by listening.

Quote:
Also, and most important to me, is that I'm hearing the same things reviewers of these speakers wrote about over thirty years ago both pro and con.

Good call.

No reason to replace any parts just to replace them.

Neat speakers, fun to learn about them.

Quote:
I mean, they stamped on the crossover, "Squawkers" for the midrange loudspeakers. You don't see that everyday.

Actually, it was fairly common in days of yore, particularly in systems with horn loaded mids such as the original PK designed Heresy's. It was always the running joke with Klipsch dealers that Paul was demonstrating his speakers at an early hifi show in the North East US when a flock of geese flew through the window in response to hearing his speakers.

Seeing "squawkers" on the crossover board is like finding a pack of Black Jack chewing gum on the grocer's shelf.

LS, if this is the "new and improved" Lamont, I heartily approve.

Quote:
We're just waiting for your next reply, probably something involving making fun of someone's name.

I'm sorry, when have I done this? You must be mistaking me for someone else. Honestly.

Quote:
Jan, knock off the playground behavior, the name calling, the condescending dismissal of others and their ideas.
Have you not noticed that you are the only member that has fought with almost everyhone here and that the exchange typically ends with you hurling personal insults?
As you told Pete, this is the wrong place for you if you cannot handle those that disagree with you, or do not see the world as you do.

Well, actually, no, I don't see that I am the only member who has fought with almost everyone here. You seem to be a tad myopic in your isolation of one individual as being responsible for the forum's woes. I bet there are numerous members who could come up with a few other names to add to that list of pugilistic partners. Unfortunately, many of those members no longer actively contribute to the forum because of various other member's performance on the forum. They leave without word as to why they are no longer contributing, so who is to say whether you or I or someone else could be the reason for their departure? If you would like me to reprint some of the PM's I've received saying thanks and how much another member appreciated many of my posts and my efforts against the prevailing climate on the forum, I can do that. As, I am certain, many of us here also can.

As to how threads end I don't see my behavior as different from most others on this forum. I would ask you, who among us is responsible for the death of most threads?

Show me such a thread that so offends you and I suspect the other members on that thread have been equally insulting. I would say start with "Perceptions" and work backward.

I do not want this thread to turn into what's wrong with me and me alone. Heaven forbid! But, I have stated from the beginning, stated repeatedly there after and most recently stated to Ethan; you will get back what you give. Now, Ethan recently posted the comment that no one here was my enemy. Alex claims to be ready to accept an olive branch. Lamont has turned a new leaf. And I repeat, you will get back what you give.

What I have been given recently is someone who finds insults in, "they tapped the inductors" and insists I am the one driving the "Loudspeaker distortion" thread off topic by responding to a question he posed about digital crossovers. I have had a PM from someone who finds the suggestion of a Stereophile Recommended Component to be "annoying and obnoxious" and a clear sign of how I go out of my way to "spoil" a thread.

Gentlemen, if you are so desperate to find insult where it does not exist, you should find another hobby, because I am not it. If you should view that sentence as insulting, I say again, find another hobby.

To my knowledge I never had a problem with several members of the forum until the "room treatments" thread. You may disagree but, from my perspective, I was called quite a few unsavory names and my sanity (among other things) was put in question by numerous members of this forum simply because I disagreed with what certain members wanted as the only appropriate answer to the op - that is, what they believe. There would appear to be the mistaken impression among certain members that any disagreement on an issue is a fight. Or, should I say I find this to be true and not what you have stated, then I am being condescending and dismissive. I always thought disagreement was at the heart of a good discussion forum. Lively and active debate need not be seen as a fight. However, if you do not like the way I debate, then you have the option of "ignore". But might I remind you that how you respond to someone and certainly to disagreement is totally within your power, not mine. Finding insult in the fact I simply disagree is ... not healthy.

If you find every disagreement I have had on the forum as insulting and my responsibility, then IMO you are once again looking too hard through one end of the microscope.

I don't wish to make this thread about Pete either but, if you find his bellicose entry onto this forum to be acceptable behavior, then you and I will have to disagree once more. My feeling is Pete works like this; he links to a specific article to prove his point, draws no specific conclusions from the linked article and, when that same article is used to disprove his point, he then claims I am an incompetent for not understanding the article. No explanation of why I am wrong when he himself has stated what it is I repeat back to him, I am just an incompetent because I do not actively participate in his field - quite a leap of logic there. Therefore, I should be banished from the face of the Earth because I and others like me do not have the educational degree Pete finds acceptable for how to listen to music. He plainly states after only a few days on the forum he has no respect for others who disagree with his "opinion". A real charmer, eh?

What Pete gives out he will get in return from me. I do not see my words on the thread to be nearly as offensive as Pete's.

Therefore, gentlemen, I would suggest you look to your own words and actions before you begin laying blame in the most convenient location rather than where it might actually belong. How you respond is your responsibility, not mine. If you find my posts condescending, consider why that is, but do not point me out as the only member who has ever posted something with which you disagree.

Quote:
Perhaps if you sit on a piece of blue paper you will feel better. Don't forget to fold a corner.

See there? With that cute little smiley face at the end, how can I find that remark insulting and highly condescending? My question is, why the smiley face at the end of such a post and such a sentence even? Because there is no condescending smirk in the available options?

You will get back what you give. That works for me.

Quote:
Personal attacks accomplish nothing except showing that you are too ignorant of the subject matter to contribute anything useful.

If I had posted that remark, someone would have seen it as condescending and begging for a fight.

Ethan, I'm going to accept your word that most everyone here is not my enemy - though I will reserve judgement for one particular individual. But he is on "ignore" and I don't even see his I-IV-V now.

I would, though, ask you to read again the "room treatment" and "perception" threads and consider your own words and actions on those threads. And I hope you'll take this post in the same spirit in which I accepted your words quoted above.

Let he who is without sin ...

Jan, I was told you won the $5 Million lottery, if you don't let me know where to send your money from some King in Africa, real soon, you will loose it. Seems you are ignoring more than me, but some ex King of some African country.....never IGNORE, it could cost you money. I put myself on ignore, it feels WEIRD!!! It's like i can say, but i can't hear....it's a trip. So if Jan is ignoring me, can I call him names now, since he won't see it, then it really didn't happen, did it? If a tree falls in the forest, and none is around.......Hey Jan, you....&*^^$^$%&$%^#^^&$&$$^$, 5" %#@^$%^ D***wee* AAAAhhhhhhh,

.

Quote:
*** You are ignoring this user ***

No I'm not

Quote:

Quote:
It depends on whether the judgment is being made while looking at a circuit diagram or while listening.

I trust the hard cold truth - and repeatability - of test gear over the frailty of human hearing every time. But you knew I'd say that.

--Ethan

And I'm wise enough to trust the cold hard truth of my ear over test gear at any time. Tests and test gear are nice. They give folks (specifically the punters) some places to hang their insecurities and lack of talent on.

Remember:

theory of relativity.

Suggestions of thermodynamics.

The 'Usually relevant and potentially correct guidelines' of Physics.

There are no laws in physics.

Only current theories. Nothing more.

Don't confabulate, Ethan. For example, don't place those who know what a measurement is, what it's value and 'place' is, with those who do not. Only a fool would utilize measurements in place of human value and logic. This is the result of Newton. Newton who had not the sense to trust himself, it seems. And from that..cascading down through time, we now have the bastardization of the REAL 'scientific method', which emphatically involves value judgments by humans.

There are no numbers in any reality that may potentially exist, and there are are no straight lines.

And no useless comeback comments either. Like I said, don't confabulate. Thank you.

Amen, KBK. Well put. If you abstract the right numbers out of the "...booming, buzzing confusion...the endless hurrying of matter..." (William James), you can get any theoretical results you want. Witness BOL's monthly CPI releases.

The numbers have to be confirmed in the listening room, not the other way around.

Quote:
Amen, KBK. Well put. If you abstract the right numbers out of the "...booming, buzzing confusion...the endless hurrying of matter..." (William James), you can get any theoretical results you want. Witness BOL's monthly CPI releases.

The numbers have to be confirmed in the listening room, not the other way around.

Witness the bare room measurements as "typical" for a room, posting grossly inaccurate room measurements/graphs, attempted minipulation of the setup after the critique of his graphs, changing mics after the critique, sudden change of rooms after the critique, and gross inaccuracies of the RS meter measurements/graphs (a whopping 34db off). He is hard to pin down, reminding me of a jumping jack while he kept sidestepping the issues for a whole month. I guess his "facts" and "truth" will depend upon how much he can minipulate them to his advantage.

Ethan will forever be known for pulling his magical "facts" and "truth" out of a hat.

Quote:
I must have missed something during this last hideous of mine. When did everybody start hating Ethan and should I hate him too?

Just the facts. Just the facts. Check out Upgrade Paths (page 4 on) in Entry Level, Accuracy in this forum, and Comparison of ten room testing microphones at Audio Circle/acoustics forum in that order. He never does refute the evidence I presented. Just dodge tatics and general scripted replies.

Quote:

Quote:
We're just waiting for your next reply, probably something involving making fun of someone's name.

I'm sorry, when have I done this? You must be mistaking me for someone else. Honestly.

You have got to be kidding.

Absolutely unreal.

All you have to do is show me where. Shouldn't be so difficult since you are so sure.

Quote:
All you have to do is show me where. Shouldn't be so difficult since you are so sure.

"Frog's name sounds no more implausible than "E. Winer" given your constant function on this and other threads."

"Not a word to upd about his constant rants."

"upd, you remind me of McCain's tire guage."

Quote:
"Frog's name sounds no more implausible than "E. Winer" given your constant function on this and other threads."

Uhhh, ... You're going to have to help me here. You're saying I made fun of Frog's name? That's the name he was using on this forum. You are one of several who made an issue of the "Frog" moniker.

Quote:
"Not a word to upd about his constant rants."

And this means what to you? What are you reading into this that doesn't exist there at all? Consider just what you have let pass from the supposedly agrieved party for the last four years.

I guess I should have been more explicit for those who see things as they wish them to be and not how they are. Show me where I made fun of someone's name and then, if the logic of your display is as obscure as these two examples, tell me how you believe I was abusing that person. From what has been posted, I see no foul. However, unlike many of you, I am not a mindreader and cannot assess the not-so-hidden meaning of words on a page.

This reaching the level of finding insults in "they tapped the inductors" and seeing "buy a Tivoli table radio" as obnoxious and annoying. Tell me how you see these things. What process do you use to devine such horrid ideas from such benign statements? Really, I have no clue. This should be interesting.

Quote:
"Frog's name sounds no more implausible than "E. Winer" given your constant function on this and other threads."

"Not a word to upd about his constant rants."

"upd, you remind me of McCain's tire guage."

I'm sure I remember "whiner" in there a bunch of times too.

Jan, here are further examples of your personal attacks. There are many to choose from. It is disturbing that you feel such behavior is appropriate.

And with this I won't continue with this line of discussion; it will make little or no difference to add more.

.............................
"I can't comment on your ego?! Someone with a username like "Elk" and I can't comment on your ego?!!!

Well, yes, I suppose that's why I can't comment on your ego. It would be redundant.

Though, I assure you, I meant the "ego" you do not push forward to make a point. But just the fact you took umbrage at that ...

You are allowing your prejudices to show. Don't make that my fault too. It's not my fault you are not the sane one here.

Now that's your ego defending you, little buddy! You really don't believe that BS line, do you?

Oh, I bet you do, O Sane One."

Quote:
Then Jan compared me to the Unabomber and I noted: Odd choice of T. Kaczynski for comparison if this was your actual point. Why not Ghandi? Obviously because referencing Ghandi does not invoke the negative baggage that Kacznski does.

"Ghandi, huh?

Excuse me ...

ROTFLMAO at that thought.

OK, that's done with.

Really, the thought that I am in a discussion with two people who see themself as Buddha and Ghandi is hillarious. You don't the the humor there? Too bad, it's dripping down the restroom wall right now.

That just sorta proved TK was the right choice."

Quote:
... my environment is already "safe" and perceived by me to be such.

"TK thought so too until they came and got him."

Quote:
I'm sure I remember "whiner" in there a bunch of times too.

Not from me. You are remembering wrong if you think otherwise. You were designated "Winer" in all of my posts. Is that not your name?

I do wish you had made this a bit easier to read with comprehension. I'm not going to search through that entire thread to look at my exact words, you should have provided some frame of reference here, Elk. I really don't know where my words end and your begin in this post. But, let's take a look at what's here.

Quote:
"I can't comment on your ego?! Someone with a username like "Elk" and I can't comment on your ego?!!!
Well, yes, I suppose that's why I can't comment on your ego. It would be redundant.
Though, I assure you, I meant the "ego" you do not push forward to make a point. But just the fact you took umbrage at that ...

1) Why don't you mention just how everyone else - other than May Belt - was posting at the time this snippet was created? Are you proud of how you responded on that thread. Elk? If so, I find it equally disturbing that you find such behavior acceptable. Do you see evenhanded, well reasoned and calm arguments coming from you, Buddha and Ethan on those threads? As I've already noted, by this time in this thread I had been insulted in numerous ways that I never though possible from a few members - all because I disagreed with what you believe and you weren't going to have any of it.

I am not looking to relive those two threads but, if someone feels they were not also out of line at times on that thread, I'd love to hear that rationalisation.

Well, actually, I wouldn't. I see no need to stir this pot again. Those two threads were a watershed moment for me on this forum. I never expected such venom to come forth merely because of what I and others can hear and what we believe to be true.

2) You still don't understand the "ego" thing, do you? That's incredible. Maybe if you had provided some perspective on my words, you might have learned a bit more about my meaning rather than still just assuming you are the only one who is right.

3) You seriously feel that is "making fun of someone's name"? Did I somehow turn your name into something obscene? Did I create some picture of an actual elk in your mind that you found insulting? If so, how? I called you "Elk". That is the name you use on his forum, right? I have to admit it is beyond me that when I refer to you by the name you have chosen to use on this forum, you take offense.

If I had labelled you "Bambi", that might be grounds for some degree of offense. I think even that might depend on the situation - which you avoid in your post. Certainly, if I had called you "Bambi's Mother's excrement", then you could have taken some righteous offense.

But to find offense when I call "Elk" by the name "Elk" leaves me even more puzzled than when you find an insult in "they tapped the inductors". How does your mind work? At what point does it begin to shut down what is on the page and start to replace it with what you wish to see?

Quote:
Oh, I bet you do, O Sane One.

Need I remind you that you are the one who declared himself to be "the only sane one" earlier in that same thread? But I offended you when I called you that? Let me get this straight because I'm having problems keeping up with the acrobatic pummel horse display of twists, distortions and purely hand over hand showmanship you have put on here.

So, if you proclaim you are the one who likes Bruce Springsteen, I would offend you if I called you "O'Fan of BS"?

Jan, it's very easy: your words are in quotation marks.

The quotes are of my posts as you chose to edit them.

Nothing misleading here at all.

There are many more. You simply wanted examples of bad behavior. You have them.

You can posture all you want, justify to your heart's delight - but you are stuck with what you chose to write.

Now let's get back to the topic, shall we?

OK, these are your words from that thread;

Quote:
Then Jan compared me to the Unabomber and I noted: Odd choice of T. Kaczynski for comparison if this was your actual point. Why not Ghandi? Obviously because referencing Ghandi does not invoke the negative baggage that Kacznski does

If you had provided some reference for what preceded those words, they would make more sense now. But, no, Elk - can I call you that? - I never compared you to Ted Kacynski. You thought I did, but I didn't. I compared your secluded lifestyle as you described it in that thread to the isolation of TK.

If you had said you lived in Downtown Manhattan, I wouldn't have mentioned TK. I still would not have come close to comparing you to Ghandi, but it wouldn't have made any sense to say you are a big city TK. Got the idea? Trees, no one around, perceived safe environment = TK. Cars, traffic, skyscrapers; does not equal TK. Simple, eh?

You never got that clear, did you?

And the thought that those two threads came from two people who do see themself as Buddha and Ghandi is still hillarious. If you truly thought of yourself as a Ghandi-like figure, you would have let this pass long ago and we wouldn't be discussing this right now.

Would we?

No, guys, like I've said, I am not repsonsible for what you cannot hear and I am certainly not responsible for what you choose to read into very simple sentences. And this is what will have you seeing even more insults in these posts. Now, I can't stop that, That's apparently how your mind works. All I can repeat is each of you have the ability to choose how you will respond to any situation. IMO, none of you responded very well on those two threads. As I've said, you will get back what you give.

That's Ghandi.

And, if "they tapped the inductors, Elk" still gets you frothy, you need to find another hobby.

This is getting old.

Quote:
Jan, it's very easy: your words are in quotation marks.

The quotes are of my posts as you chose to edit them.

Why don't you try to make things plainly understood, Elk. I can call you "Elk", right? I do my best to be understood - that you prefer to put into your head what you want to see is not my problem. If you honestly believe you are blameless in what transpired on those threads, you really should spend some time with a bit of Ghandi on your reading table.

Jan, your last three posts have nicely proven my point.

You can stop now.

Quote:
Now let's get back to the topic, shall we?

Still can't let it go, eh, Elk?

I can call you "elk", right?

How grown up you are.

How like Ghandi you are not.

Why does this bother you so?

Because you know you have behaved like an ass?

Because you know no sensible person should get upset over, "They tapped the inductors"?

The ball's in your court, Elk. We can continue as enemies on this forum, you can choose to ignore me or we can discuss topics without further animosity.

You will get back exactly what you decide to give.

And to think, I had nothing to do with this trail of verbage!!!!! It must be the distortion that makes people angry?

Thoreau!

A reference to Thoreau would have been perfect.

Quote:
It must be the distortion that makes people angry?

Excellent theory, Mr. DUP!

Quote:
I must have missed something during this last hideous of mine. When did everybody start hating Ethan and should I hate him too?

No, no. Ethan's Ok in my book. Even if we disagree at times. This the forum. We're supposed to be assholes every now and then. After all, it is the internet.

And evryone's a geneus on the net. True. I red that.

Ride into battle screaming, "Google is Great! Google is Great! Google is Great!

Good for you, and glad you can get years of enjoyment out of this. Can you describe the "old" caps? I suspect a lot of older X-over caps were eletrolytic types and your replacement is a film type.

I replaced a pair of nominal 2 uF oil-filled motor-starting caps (these were all I had available then) in my DIY speaker with a Mylar(R) film cap and it seems to sound less harsh.

Another thing that we wearing out over the years were the level controls to match the midrange and tweeter to the woofer. Replacing those 8 watt L-pads with 50 watt units as well as being new L-pads (contact is better between the wiper and the resistive element) the sound is smoother.

Enjoy the sound.

Lamont,

Thanks for posting the photos again. Didn't mean for you to go to all that trouble.

I went back and skimmed the posts. Yes, the advice you got was good, that the non-polar electrolytics can go bad over time. I see that the caps are 35 VDC Rated and 10 uF. One could get these caps in the film versions with difficulty as I've found, or parallel some lower values to add up to the 10 uF.

Skimming the posts, I did not find a response to avoiding the use of 100 V caps. Those will work fine but may be physically much larger. I've read somewhere that a higher rating gives it more 'headroom', but 35 V is likely more than adequate. Just a tidbit of info you can use later.

I actually found at a surplus electronics supply several metal-can-enclosed 10 uF 100 VDC caps that I used in the crossover, bought eight of them (four per side for a 40 uF) for the DIY pair of speaker crossovers. I rarely listen to these speakers except for convenience of watching the TV and want better sound than the TV speakers provide.

By the way, if you feel adventureous, you could replace the iron-cored inductors with air-cored ones, placed apart from each other and away from anything magnetic or magnetizable. Iron cores have been said to saturate at high levels of signal and cause distortion. Whether this actually happens, or can happen in your case, I don't know. If the speaker was designed with that in mind, and the designers do know about this issue, it's probably a non-issue to you.

Lamont! I had a buddy with those speakers when I was a teenager. Many fond memories of those playing during our darts tournaments.

I love vintage gear, resurrected.

I find, in general, it holds up quite well!

Now I'm motivated. If I find a pair of those locally, I'll lean on you for some update advice.

How's your take on grill on or grill off with these?

Lamont, do you like those Sansuis better than modern designs? Speaker design has come a long way since those were made. If you do, that is cool, I was just curious.

Quote:
Another audiophile took the plunge first so I just replaced the factory caps with Jantzen Audio Standard Z-Caps. Man, the difference is plain as day. I did the outboard boxes first and just switched back and forth between Speakers 1 and Speakers 2 to hear the difference. The cross-over frequencies are now much more tuned and I would put these against a pair of Klipsch Heresy III any day of the week. Yes, that's right. My 34 year old modified Sansui SP2500 against the Heresy III.

Thanks, LS, you resurrected this thread at a perfect time. I'm in the process of refurbishing a pair if AR3's and just finished rebuilding the crossover of one of them. A definate improvement but I think I'll follow your lead and upgrade the parts for the second speaker to hear what kind of sound difference there will be. Experimenting like this is so much fun!

Quote:
Limited to speaker crossover networks. Yes or no.

It depends entirely on what capacitors were used in the first place and what capacitors were used with the replacement.

There is no general answer.

There are also other issues, if ESR changes substantially, you may get a difference due to simple changes in ESR, for instance, not due to any "capacitive" part of the system.

There is no one answer to this question. Capacitors in crossovers (meaning passive ones) are in a particularly high-energy position for most kinds and types of capacitors, and it wouldn't be the first time I saw something being used in a completely bogus fashion.

Quote:

Quote:
Limited to speaker crossover networks. Yes or no.

It depends entirely on what capacitors were used in the first place and what capacitors were used with the replacement.

There is no general answer.

There are also other issues, if ESR changes substantially, you may get a difference due to simple changes in ESR, for instance, not due to any "capacitive" part of the system.

The major change that most loudspeaker capacitor upgrades apply usually relates to the simplist thing - their actual capacitance. Most of the original parts were +80 -20, so we don't know what they did for sure without measuring them pretty carefully.

In the case of the Sansui, some of the inductors look pretty skimpy. Iron cores, especially too-small iron cores are a flashing red light.

Quote:

The major change that most loudspeaker capacitor upgrades apply usually relates to the simplist thing - their actual capacitance. Most of the original parts were +80 -20, so we don't know what they did for sure without measuring them pretty carefully.

True, this is why I always tested caps before I put them into a crossover. It's not the -20 that is the usual problem, either, +80 on a tweeter crossover can be, well, annoying.

Quote:

In the case of the Sansui, some of the inductors look pretty skimpy. Iron cores, especially too-small iron cores are a flashing red light.

Especially if they are for low frequencies. For high frequencies maybe the bh integral isn't so big.

Quote:
The modern design being today's boxes that look like something out of 2001: A Space Odyssey?

Nah, I don't like them just because of the design. I like them because they are manufactured so damn well and have stood up for so long. I do compare them with the the Klipsh Heresy line. The Heresy II and III. Both traditional looking boxes. But a closer inspection shows that even these retro Sansui boxes were a little ahead of their time. A fluke in technology that has held up for a number of decades where others have pretty much rotted away.

BTW, I'm not trying to advocate that Sansui made great speakers. The SP2500 seems to be a well engineered oddity for them since they were leaders in other audio equipment at the time and weren't known for their speakers for the most part. You can find old advertisements where the dealer is including these SP2500s with an entire Sansui system. Not separately.

so you enjoy the sound better than modern stuff youve heard and enjoy the fact that they are still holding up.