It turns out I *did* post to this forum about my 2011 XO upgrades on 2/2/18 (pg 49), with beetlemania and others acknowledging my relatively early surgery.
My 2.4s are fairly early production (SN 611,612) so I can confirm the high(er) quality original XO parts (including the inductors), point-to-point boards (literally), and wiring.
Due to nobody posting about 2.4 XO specifics in 2011, I had to wing it with only the schematic and XOs in front of me and Thiel telling me their use of Clarity Cap SA. So I wasn't about to second-guess their use of film 1uF bypasses. I had evidence the ESA I ended up using was a better-sounding cap than the SA, the CSA wasn't available yet, and the 630V caps and far-more-expensive Mundorfs et al were simply too big for the space on the XO board, so I used 250V versions.
I don't doubt the XO can be improved well beyond what I've done, but as Tom Thiel points out, there are risks and pitfalls to just throwing the best and fewest parts at such a carefully-modeled 2-way XO. I look forward to reading what Rob Gillum and team can accomplish with more resources than were available to me at the time!
And I'm still waiting for informed comments about the compromises of the 2.4 baffle versus the smoothly rounded 2.3. The 2.7 did away with the baffle discontinuities and should sound that much better due to both the baffle and certainly the 3.7 coax.
My 2.4s are fairly early production (SN 611,612) so I can confirm the high(er) quality original XO parts (including the inductors), point-to-point boards (literally), and wiring.
Due to nobody posting about 2.4 XO specifics in 2011, I had to wing it with only the schematic and XOs in front of me and Thiel telling me their use of Clarity Cap SA. So I wasn't about to second-guess their use of film 1uF bypasses. I had evidence the ESA I ended up using was a better-sounding cap than the SA, the CSA wasn't available yet, and the 630V caps and far-more-expensive Mundorfs et al were simply too big for the space on the XO board, so I used 250V versions.
I don't doubt the XO can be improved well beyond what I've done, but as Tom Thiel points out, there are risks and pitfalls to just throwing the best and fewest parts at such a carefully-modeled 2-way XO. I look forward to reading what Rob Gillum and team can accomplish with more resources than were available to me at the time!
And I'm still waiting for informed comments about the compromises of the 2.4 baffle versus the smoothly rounded 2.3. The 2.7 did away with the baffle discontinuities and should sound that much better due to both the baffle and certainly the 3.7 coax.