I Love SL2000 Tweeters

NJPOLKER

Ricardo wrote: »

Nice thread.

Here's to you Ricardo

NJPOLKER

By the way I agree to each his or her own when it comes to the actual sounds they here.
I wonder how much longer these subjects are going to be covered in this thread. I think we have covered too many subjects in this one thread but I guess its all good.
Drew

candyliquor35m

Joe08867 wrote: »

I did a left right comparison. I tried a tube amp (Heathkit & Mac) and SS amps (B&K & Adcom) and still found the SL's Shrill with that high end peak that causes a headache. It wasn't as bad with the Heathkit at moderate volumes but bad on all at higher listening levels.

Hey it's cool if you like them and they work with your setup it's all good.

I say we agree to disagree. BTW: The Carver M1.0t is a nice amp. Had one a while back always liked the sound.

I applaud your perseverance in trying out all your options before making a final decision. I am worried that most everyone else is just slapping in the new rd0's and listen for a bit and conclude 'yep that took care of the harshness and brightness'.

But at what cost I ask. I don't think most are evaluating what they've lost to get rid of harshness and brightness.

Since you've tried everything else, why not try the $3 cap and see what happens if you still have any sl2000's laying around.

The cap also improved the sound of the rd0194 when I tested it.

Ricardo

candyliquor35m wrote: »

But at what cost I ask. I don't think most are evaluating what they've lost to get rid of harshness and brightness.

According to who? You? Same thing applies here; if others like their RDO's, they do so because they didn't lose anything, according to their ears.

One more Damn it.

candyliquor35m

Ricardo wrote: »

According to who? You? Same thing applies here; if others like their RDO's, they do so because they didn't lose anything, according to their ears.

One more Damn it.

Damn it Janet (I forget the rest of Brad's line).

I'm glad you are questioning everything I say and I hope everyone else is doing the same. Most of everything we discuss here is personal opinion based hopefully on what our own ears have experienced and not something we've read on the internet or in a book.

All I'm saying is 'don't throw the baby away with the bathwater' (i.e. there might be something very special about the sl2000 that we are overlooking and just throwing it away to get rid of the dirty bathwater).

My perception is with the rd0194, I lose that light airy almost floating in thin air sound that many tube lovers spend all their life trying to obtain and perfect. And if you've never heard it then you won't know what I'm talking about it.

The sl3000's come close in my 2.3's but no cigar.

rskarvan

Lots of people used to think the SL2000's were magical tweeters (especially in their time). They aren't bad at all. I personally think they are much, much better than the SL2500's... but, don't hold a candle to the SL3000's.

I like the RDO's too though. They are both very good.

jakelm

The Peerless beat them all out....:p

shadowofnight

As long as nobody says they disconnect the tweeters and run BOSE cubes on top of their Polks I'm good

candyliquor35m

rskarvan wrote: »

Lots of people used to think the SL2000's were magical tweeters (especially in their time). They aren't bad at all. I personally think they are much, much better than the SL2500's... but, don't hold a candle to the SL3000's.

I like the RDO's too though. They are both very good.

Wow, someone that likes all 3. Maybe we're debating over nothing.

I'm listening to the 3000's in my left 2.3 right now and 2000WC's (with cap) in the right and both are silky smooth and impressive.

The 3000's help project the mids much quicker and further than the laid back 2000WC's.

The CD is digitally recorded smooth, mellow and laid back alto sax music.

jakelm

candyliquor35m wrote: »

Wow, someone that likes all 3. Maybe we're debating over nothing.

I'm listening to the 3000's in my left 2.3 right now and 2000WC's (with cap) in the right and both are silky smooth and impressive.

The 3000's help project the mids much quicker and further than the laid back 2000WC's.

The CD is digitally recorded smooth, mellow and laid back alto sax music.

Ok, now turn your treble UP to 9 o'clock...:p:p


j/k...

Face

candyliquor35m wrote: »

Wow, someone that likes all 3. Maybe we're debating over nothing.

I'm listening to the 3000's in my left 2.3 right now and 2000WC's (with cap) in the right and both are silky smooth and impressive.

The 3000's help project the mids much quicker and further than the laid back 2000WC's.

The CD is digitally recorded smooth, mellow and laid back alto sax music.

rskarvan wrote: »

Lots of people used to think the SL2000's were magical tweeters (especially in their time). They aren't bad at all. I personally think they are much, much better than the SL2500's... but, don't hold a candle to the SL3000's.

I like the RDO's too though. They are both very good.

Two peas in a pod.

nms

For those of you who are sick of this thread I apologize for keeping it going...

After listening for a day to my SDAs with the SL2000s in them here's what I think:

For symphonic, organ, some jazz and some non-vocal stuff, the SL2000s sound much more detailed and natural to my ears. Poorly recorded music in these genres will still sound bad, it's not a forgiving tweeter by nature. The SL2000 brings out more detail in the instruments: I can hear the "sharpness" of the violins and the oily deep thrum of the string bass much better through this tweeter than I can through the RD0. The RD0 will sound fine to me until I switch over to the SL2000 for a while and then go back, and it's like listening to the music through a thick curtain. The RD0 certainly sounds good, but I feel like I'm missing stuff in the highs compared to the SL2000.

However, on ANYTHING with vocals, the SL2000 gave me a headache. The 13 KHz harmonic peak is truly unbearable at high listening levels. I found that on well recorded stuff (Norah Jones, for example), the peak was not quite as bad. At low volumes I still prefer it over the RD0. But at moderate levels, even when the 13 KHz peak was not really noticeable, the SL2000 would still give me a headache after an extended listening session. On poorly recorded selections the cymbals and drums could be a bit too "forward" and prevalent in the overall sound. But this varied quite a bit from piece-to-piece.

I wish there was a way to run both tweeters in my speakers so I could use one or the other depending on what I was listening to. I truly love how the SL2000 does with classical music.

As they say, your mileage may vary.

candyliquor35m

nms,

I think the cap on the sl2000 will surprise you and may just make the sl2000wc the best of both what the sl2000 and the rd0 has to offer.

F1nut

candyliquor35m wrote: »

Please report back after you've done your own side by side comparison like I have.

This from the guy that doesn't know a resistor from a capacitor.....oh please. :rolleyes:
I wouldn't trust anything you have to say on the matter.

OldmanSRS

ben62670 wrote: »

a low value cap inline with the tweeter is a 6db roll off in the upper frequencies.

I have to respectfully disagree here. An inline cap is a high pass filter. That 6dB attenuation will occur in the lower frequencies sent to the tweet from the XO. A low value cap accross the tweet will provide some high frequency shunting (rolloff) of the higher frequencies.

Marty913

OldmanSRS wrote: »

I have to respectfully disagree here. An inline cap is a high pass filter. That 6dB attenuation will occur in the lower frequencies sent to the tweet from the XO. A low value cap accross the tweet will provide some high frequency shunting (rolloff) of the higher frequencies.

Good write-up of your experience, nms. I also agree this thread (and all threads involving SL2000 caps/resistors) is getting tiresome.

HOWEVER, we have an open disagreement as to whether the cap should be a resistor. Can we at least clear that up for those that might want to try it?

candyliquor35m

nms,

I'll even mail you a cap to try if you promise to pass it on to the next person that wants to try it. PM me your address if you're interested.

TroyD

nms,

Do it. I'll give you twenty bucks if you dip it in mercury and send it back.

BDT

ShinAce

Oldman, and ben, you're both correct.

Ben just forget to put the word 'high pass' in his post. No biggie. The idea is still clear.

Oldman, even a single resistor is incorrect. You need a network for attenuation. Better yet, do not attenuate, bi-amp. Get rid of all caps and resistors.

It still seems like the cap is being used as a first order high pass Butterworth filter. We won't know until we get an in-use pic or a schematic. Any more questions?

OldmanSRS

ShinAce wrote: »

Oldman, and ben, you're both correct.

Ben just forget to put the word 'high pass' in his post. No biggie. The idea is still clear.

Oldman, even a single resistor is incorrect. You need a network for attenuation. Better yet, do not attenuate, bi-amp. Get rid of all caps and resistors.

It still seems like the cap is being used as a first order high pass Butterworth filter. We won't know until we get an in-use pic or a schematic. Any more questions?

Ace, No matter how it's described a small value cap placed in series with a tweeter will attenuate the lower frequecies and pass the higher frequencies less attenuated. The small cap has a high impedance at low F and and a low Z at high F. XL=1/2P F C. You don't nessecarily need a L C R network, only a single cap will block low F and act as a simple XO passing high F to a tweeter. Look at cheap speakers or coaxial car speakers for examples.

I think the objective of this effort is to add a samll cap to attenuate the lower part of the signal to the tweeter and make the tweeter sound better by reducing it's percieved volume by virture of it not reproducing the lower end of it's frequency response.

I didn't mention anything about resitors.

jakelm

This might sound stupid, but please excuse me.

If I would add a 1uF cap. 1uF @ 8ohms, give about a 15khz pass. If I add this 1uF cap BEFORE another that yields a much lower xover point, wouldnt the first 1uF cap screw up the whole chain of crossovers?

When runing a cap in series, does it devide, like ohms?

I know parallel you add the values.

But if I run a 1uF in series before a 12uF. What is my total cap value?

I have worked on xovers, in my Polks, but never seen a cap in series with another.

OldmanSRS

The total capacitance of capacitors in series is equal to the reciprocal of the sum of the reciprocals of their individual capacitances:

so: 1/12 uF + 1/1 uf = 1/C total = .083 + 1 = 1/1.083 = .92 uF

At 15Khz the 1 uF cap has an impedance of 10 Ohms in your 8 Ohm circuit. It will provide roughly 3 dB of attenutation at 15K Hz or about 1/2 the power to the device.

jakelm

OldmanSRS wrote: »

The total capacitance of capacitors in series is equal to the reciprocal of the sum of the reciprocals of their individual capacitances:

so: 1/12 uF + 1/1 uf = 1/C total = .083 + 1 = 1/1.083 = .92 uF

At 15Khz the 1 uF cap has an impedance of 10 Ohms in your 8 Ohm circuit. It will provide roughly 3 dB of attenutation at 15K Hz or about 1/2 the power to the device.

So we just went from a XO point of ~1.2khz, to a XO point of ~16khz. By adding a very small cap before the xover. That cant be good.

Face

jakelm wrote: »

So we just went from a XO point of ~1.2khz, to a XO point of ~16khz. By adding a very small cap before the xover. That cant be good.

Jake, I believe he meant between the crossover and the driver.

jakelm

Face wrote: »

Jake, I believe he meant between the crossover and the driver.

Hmm.. So if your HP signal comming out the XO is being attenuated 3dbs @ 1.2khz and you add a 1uF cap, that attenuates 15khz @ 3dbs. Then what is the end result?

OldmanSRS

Basically adding the 1 uF cap in series with the existing 12 uF cap will cause the XO point to raise. If it was 1.2K Hz before it will go up to around 15K Hz. This is a generalization because to calculate it more precisely one would have to know the layout of the curcuit ie, wiring diagram, inductors, caps, and resistors that are all players.

avguytx

So, basically it's just half **** stuck in there not totally correct, right? I can't think of a good analogy here. I'm spent on this topic but I'm sure more will come out of it.

OldmanSRS

I have not read all the pages but isn't the idea with the added cap to improve the harshness of a treeter? A series cap of a certain value, arrived at using experimentation, could accomplish this by removing some of the lower frequency component of the tweeter's operation where the tweeter is percived as harsh. There may be no exact value, it's likey going to be subjective.

jakelm

OldmanSRS wrote: »

I have not read all the pages but isn't the idea with the added cap to improve the harshness of a treeter? A series cap of a certain value, arrived at using experimentation, could accomplish this by removing some of the lower frequency component of the tweeter's operation where the tweeter is percived as harsh. There may be no exact value, it's likey going to be subjective.

So the basic objecting here, is to xo the tweeter above the point where it is harsh?

But the gap between the mid and the tweeter also increase, leaving a hole in the midrange..

And increasing the range of the mids, to compensate for increase in tweeter, might cause phase issues..

jakelm

Instead of adding, I would have just pulled the XO out and changed the value of the HP cap and resistor to attenuate where I liked it..