2. speakers
  3. 1211428524

Capacitor log Mundorf Silver in Oil

I wished I could find a log with information on caps. I have found many saying tremendous improvement etc. but not a detailed account of what the changes have been. I have had the same speakers for many years so am very familiar with them. (25+ years) The speakers are a set of Klipsch Lascala's. They have Alnico magnets in the mids and ceramic woofers and tweeters. The front end is Linn LP12 and Linn pre amp and amp. The speaker wire is 12 gauge and new wire.

I LOVE these speakers around 1 year ago they started to sound like garbage. As many have said they are VERY sensitive to the components before them. They are also showing what I think is the effect of worn out caps.

There are many out here on these boards I know of that are using the Klipsch (heritage) with cheaper Japanese electronics because the speakers are cheap! (for what they can do) One thing I would recommend is give these speakers the best quality musical sources you can afford. There is a LOT to get out of these speakers. My other speakers are Linn speakers at around 4k new with Linn tri-wire (I think about 1k for that) and the Klipsch DESTROY them in my mind. If you like "live feel" there is nothing like them. In fact it shocks me how little speakers have improved in 30 years (or 60 years in the Khorns instance)

In fact I question Linn's theory (that they have proved many times) that the source is the most important in the Hi-Fi chain. Linn's theory is top notch source with lessor rest of gear including speakers trumps expensive speakers with lessor source. I think is right if all things are equal but Klipsch heritage are NOT equal! They make a sound and feel that most either LOVE or hate. (I am in the LOVE camp and other speakers are boring to me)

So here goes and I hope this helps guys looking at caps in the future. Keep in mind Klipsch (heritage Khorns Belle's and Lascala's especially) are likely to show the effects of crossover changes more then most.

1 The caps are 30 years old and
2 the speakers being horn driven make changes 10x times more apparent.

Someone once told me find speakers and components you like THEN start to tweak if needed. Don't tweak something you not in love with. Makes sense to me.

So sound
Record is Let it Be (Beatles)
The voices are hard almost sounds like a worn out stylus.
Treble is very hard. I Me Mine has hard sounding guitars. Symbals sound awful. Everything has a digital vs. analog comparison x50! Paul's voice not as bad as John's and George's. Voices will crack.

different lp
Trumpets sound awful. Tambourine terrible. Bass is not great seems shy (compared to normal) but the bad caps draw soooooo much attention to the broken up mid range and hard highs that are not bright if anything it seems the highs are not working up to snuff. I have went many times to speaker to make sure tweeters are even working.

All in all they sound like crap except these Klipsch have such fantastic dynamics that even when not right they are exciting!

Makes me wonder about the people who do not like them if they are hearing worn out caps and cheap electronics? Then I can see why they do not like them! If I did not know better from 25+ years of ownership that would make sense.

For the new crossover I have chosen Mundorf Silver in Oil from what I have read and can afford. I want a warm not overly detailed sound as Klipsch already has lots of detail and does not need to be "livened up" they need lush smooth sounding caps. Hope I have made the right choice?

When the crossover is in I will do a initial impression on same lp's. Right now it goes from really bad (on what may be worn vinyl) to not as bad but NOT great on great vinyl. (I know the quality of the vinyl because tested on other speakers Linn)

The new caps are Mundorf Silver in Oil and new copper foil inductors are coming. I will at the same time be rewiring the speakers to 12 guage from the lamp cord that PWK put in. PWK was a master at getting very good sound often with crap by today's standards components.

The choice of speakers would be a toss up now depending on what I am listening to. Klipsch vastly more dynamic but if the breaking up of the sound becomes to much to effect enjoyment the Linn would be a better choice on that Lp. If I could I would switch a button back and forth between speakers depending on song and how bad the break-up sound was bothering me.

volleyguy
mikirob
955 posts
 
Hi Charles,
No, not really, I'd prefer to purchase one of Yazaki-San Western Electric DA30 SET amps. Now, I have't heard either of these amps yet. But let's say they sound nearly identical, I'd still go for the tube unit. Why? Complex answer that I'll have to perk on for a bit to articulate in a coherent manner.

I have the highest respect for Yazaki-san talent, ears as you stated above; he is a "kindred spirit" in the pursuit of "real sound". I, like Yazaki-san, listen differently than the typical audiophile. I quoted in an earlier thread Jeff Day's listening bias, "Timbral Listening" which matches exactly my own listening bias. I believe Yazaki-san, perhaps you too listen this way...prefer single ended DHT with highly efficient speakers. Timbre, tone, density, weight, fullness, color, texture, harmonic rightness, dynamics, transparent, natural, organic feel and flow, musical, emotional intent of musicians come through to the listener. Best, Rob

charles1dad's avatar
charles1dad
10,250 posts
 
Rob,
Actually that description of listening preferences fits me very well. Those are exactly the things that get and hold my attention. Probably explains why some touted brands/components leave me cold and uninterested.
Charles,
mikirob
955 posts
 
Hello Charles,
I thought it useful to reprint Jeff Day's "Listening Bias" since he articulates it so succinctly, matches exactly how I listen, plus, if you read Yazaki-san's own words about how he came to find his own sound, the pursuit of "Real Sound" and his design philosophy I think you will understand that we are all "kindred spirits" in how we listen.

From Jeff Day Blog on Listening Bias:

"Thought it might be handy for those following my writing at Positive Feedback Online to know what my listening biases are to aid you in interpreting and decoding my reviews. Just to alert you, my listening perspective is somewhat of a minority opinion in the Hi-Fi community of North America, but will be more familiar to those listeners in Turkey, Africa, and Japan, who tend to be more familiar with timbral ways of listening. My hierarchy of importance is aligned more closely to how well a Hi-Fi rig plays the musical content of recordings (I know, it’s a heretical concept), rather than how it ‘sounds’ in the more traditional audiophile ‘sonic’ sense.

As a result of my being drawn towards the musical content of recordings, I tend to be a bit more of a timbral listener than is typical for a lot of Westerners, meaning that the reproduction of the textures, colors, and tones & overtones in the music are really important to me. To this end I look for timbral realism at the band level (the band’s signature ‘sound’) and at the individual instrument level (the unique ‘voices’ of instruments). I want them to sound recognizably like themselves in tone and texture, so that their full tone color can develop, which I think helps lend a feeling of beauty and expressiveness to the music. I like the melody (the tune you ‘whistle while you work’), harmony (treble & bass accompaniments to the melody) and rhythm (the steady beat that determines the tempo) to have a life-like flow and connectedness in how the musicians interact—just like in real life. I want dynamics (variations in loudness) to evoke that which I hear in life for an emotional connection to the melody and rhythm. For loudness I like my music playback to be similar to live loudness levels, which for the kind of music I listen to the most, jazz, usually means 80 dB or louder. Finally, I want tempo portrayed so that both the mood and speed of the music are conveyed through it, just like it is with music in real life.

I consider the sonic performance of a Hi-Fi rig on the non-musical artifacts of the recording process to be of value, but of less importance to me than the performance on the musical content of recordings (as above). So things like transparency (being able to ‘see’ into the recording), soundstage (the three dimensions of the recorded space in width, height and depth), soundspace (the acoustic ‘space’ of the soundstage), and imaging (the feeling of solidity and localization of instruments & musicians on the soundstage) are important to me, but they are not my primary focus – the musical content is.

So I like my cake (the musical content of recordings) with a little frosting (the sonic artifacts of the recording process) for a balanced taste treat. Too much frosting and not enough cake puts me off. So that’s me, and you might be different, but at least now you know."

Well, that sums it up for me very nicely, that is how I listen. I obviously really enjoy Day's Blog, simpatico person in attitude toward family, food, wine, music; a "kindred spirit". I can trust what he writes about when it comes to equipment and music. Same for Yazaki-san who not only has great ears, but he can design/build/modify equipment to match the sound Day enumerates. Like you, both big Jazz aficionados.
charles1dad's avatar
charles1dad
10,250 posts
 
Hi Rob,
Reading that I'd say I'm cut from the same cloth. Musical attributes are more important to me than the sonic ones. I suspect being into acoustic jazz like they happened to be, we'd listen/hear that way by default. I believe Art Dudley falls into this category also. We seem to like(and dislike) the same type of audio components for the most part. Politically we're polar opposites LOL!
Charles,
mikirob
955 posts
 
Agree on Dudley musical tastes and choices. I've always enjoyed his writing since subscribing to Listener over twenty years ago. If I wasn't moving in the direction I am I might go Shindo like Dudley. I likely agree with you on the political stuff as well...but too much of that in my dailey life as it is. Best, Rob
More to discover