[Karsten]

Thanks Karsten.  I know when I talked to Bob he said all new production coming out would have the Mundorfs, just didn't really say which ones.  Is it likely that due to the size this variant would only be done outboard?

I think Bob mentioned that it should be possible to make it as an internal version, however I would probably prefer to keep it as an external cross over which will be an option as well.

Karsten

[Double Ugly]

Thanks Karsten.  I know when I talked to Bob he said all new production coming out would have the Mundorfs, just didn't really say which ones.  Is it likely that due to the size this variant would only be done outboard?

I think Bob mentioned that it should be possible to make it as an internal version, however I would probably prefer to keep it as an external cross over which will be an option as well.

Karsten

Yeah, I spoke w/ him last night about that very thing.  It may be possible, but I think those who want the top-of-the-line Mundorf components should seriously consider an external crossover.  Fact is, it may turn out to be the *only* option due to the size and number of caps involved.

I'm gonna have mine mounted on a nice piece of wood that matches the speakers, put a Plexiglas cover over it and sit it atop Audio Points or a Sistrum rack.  It looks too cool to hide IMHO. 

-Jim

[TomS]

Thanks Karsten.  I know when I talked to Bob he said all new production coming out would have the Mundorfs, just didn't really say which ones.  Is it likely that due to the size this variant would only be done outboard?

I think Bob mentioned that it should be possible to make it as an internal version, however I would probably prefer to keep it as an external cross over which will be an option as well.

Karsten

Yeah, I spoke w/ him last night about that very thing.  It may be possible, but I think those who want the top-of-the-line Mundorf components should seriously consider an external crossover.  Fact is, it may turn out to be the *only* option due to the size and number of caps involved.

I'm gonna have mine mounted on a nice piece of wood that matches the speakers, put a Plexiglas cover over it and sit it atop Audio Points or a Sistrum rack.  It looks too cool to hide IMHO. 

-Jim

Are you getting the full mondo version xo as Karsten showed here?

[Double Ugly]

Thanks Karsten.  I know when I talked to Bob he said all new production coming out would have the Mundorfs, just didn't really say which ones.  Is it likely that due to the size this variant would only be done outboard?

I think Bob mentioned that it should be possible to make it as an internal version, however I would probably prefer to keep it as an external cross over which will be an option as well.

Karsten

Yeah, I spoke w/ him last night about that very thing.  It may be possible, but I think those who want the top-of-the-line Mundorf components should seriously consider an external crossover.  Fact is, it may turn out to be the *only* option due to the size and number of caps involved.

I'm gonna have mine mounted on a nice piece of wood that matches the speakers, put a Plexiglas cover over it and sit it atop Audio Points or a Sistrum rack.  It looks too cool to hide IMHO. 

-Jim

Are you getting the full mondo version xo as Karsten showed here?

Yes, I am.  Despite the considerable $ difference, fact is, I can't help myself.   

I know all-too-well how impressive the difference can be with better caps, and when I factor in the improvements Karsten heard w/ the new coil, it's practically a no-brainer for me. 

Part of the reason for the "no-brainer" comment stems from my experience w/ Bob's updates/crossover corrections/whatever you want to call it.  When he says something makes a worthwhile improvement, I know enough to trust him.  I happily ate a huge helping of crow a couple of weeks after questioning the veracity of Bob's comments re: a recent crossover update, and I'll not make that mistake again.

The fact that I'm a music-loving version of Tim "The Tool Man" Taylor doesn't help matters either.   

-Jim

[Karsten]

Jim, you are in for a real treat 

A couple of days ago I went to the guy who bought my old Revelations and replaced the "beep" inductors (which was an even bigger type than I had in my current set) with Mundorf bt84. Same story, no bottoming out of the woofers on the problematic bass note of  Oscar Peterson "You Look Good To Me". All the bass problems, which he thought was room related, was gone. Better mid range and better highs. He became a very happy man.

This actually makes me wonder how many people are fighting with bass problems, thinking they are room related, but in reality are caused by inferior inductors....

Karsten

[brj]

Just out of curiosity, what kind of $ are you talking for the maxed out crossover?

I'm wondering if going fully active, ala TacT or DEQ/X becomes price competitive at that point...

(Yes, there are trade-offs there, in that you need multiple amps and may need to mod the unit to bring the pre-amp and DAC sections up to whatever you might be replacing, but you do gain full room FIR and IIR based correction and even more crossover flexability.)

Nonetheless, it sounds like a great upgrade - congrats to all involved!

[Double Ugly]

The price isn't set yet, but Bob made it clear it isn't going to be inexpensive.

I'd love to go active, and I will just as soon as I can find a TacT, DEQX or similar piece of equipment that doesn't negatively affect the sound.  All the FIR and IIR corrections in the world aren't worth the price of the openness, clarity and tonal accuracy that result in the realistic presentation I get even now with the Timepiece 2.1s.  Not to me.

As good as my Timepieces are, the 'old' Revelations were a whole 'nother dimension beyond, and the latest version is said to be much improved.  If that's true - and I believe it is - I expect to hear the most life-like reproduction of music I've ever heard.  Since I've auditioned a highly-modified TacT pre- in my system, and since both Bob and Karsten have experimented with a DEQX in a Revelation-based system, I feel relatively confident in saying the potentially improved aspects of the presentation aren't worth the trade-offs I've experienced.

YMMV...

-Jim

[Karsten]

I just took a look at Mundorfs own description of the silver/gold capacitors. It is pretty much bang on according my own experiences.


The metallization of the capacitor foil for our MCap
SUPREME SILVER/GOLD consists of pure silver, to
which 1% gold of the finest purity is admixed. Gold alters
the crystalline structure of silver and maximises its very
good electrical conductivity. The outstanding properties
of the MCap SUPREME - high definition and auditory
ambiance of the music playback - are once again audibly
enhanced and substantially enriched in finely nuanced
timbres through the utilisation of silver/gold.
„...with the silver-gold I can now even hear which wood
the drummer‘s sticks are made of - it‘s simply unbelievable!“
confirms Dirk Jambor from True Track Recording
& Fairman Mastering Components.
Painstaking quality controls before during and after the
lavish production of MCap SUPREME SILVER/GOLD
assure the user of extremely marginal tolerance values
and extraordinarily high long-term stability. In order to
exclude possible vibrations which would lead to an alienation
of the music signal, the capacitor is also mechanically
stabilised in a special process.
The slightest tolerances of the components utilised in
the right and left signal path are the decisive basis for a
realistic, stereophonic-spatial music playback; the exact
ability to locate musicians and an appropriate spatial
imaging is only possible if the characteristics of the left
and right channel are virtually identical.
The technical precision and rapidity of the MCap
SUPREME SILVER/GOLD harmonise perfectly with musical
beauty and elegance: From complete silence instruments
and voices develop their entire vivid variety,
clarity and strength in a wonderfully transparent auditory
ambiance.

Bob suggested to bypass the tweeter series resistor with 0.1 uf of same type. Since I don't have any of these available I just tried with two 0.22 uF standard aluminium film polypropylene type in series. The funny thing is that it sounded like this introduced a slight but well known artifact, recognised from experiments with using this specific type of capacitors throughout. The highs gets just a little less natural....... Hmm.....

Another thing, using these silver/gold types allows the use of an extremely clean, uncolored and fast front end. All the energy previously perceived as bright or harsh seems to transform into useful fantastic sounding acoustic energy. This is something to consider when selecting equipment, especially if current system is trimmed to less capable speakers.

Karsten

   

[Aether Audio]

Guys,

I think Bob mentioned that it should be possible to make it as an internal version...

Just to clear things up...nope - not possible.  There's no way this monster is going to fit inside our enclosures.  The only way would be to do a multi-level board.  Seeing the inductors are so big (tall), they would have to go on the innermost level, i.e., the board closest to the center of the enclosure and furthest away from the outer terminal plate.  That would cause the greatest amount of weight to cantilever away from the support points on the terminal plate.  One good jar and it would snap the screws and we'd have one big assembly laying at the bottom of the enclosure.  And no...with the internal structures of the enclosure, there is no space to mount it in the bottom of the cabinet.

So...if you want this thing it's going to be an external assembly or not at all.  In light of this, give me your input on what form you want it to take.  I'm going to do one board layout and one assembly construction for all.  I don't have time to re-invent the wheel for each individual.  Well, I guess I do... but it will cost you.  Time is money and this monstrous contraption is going to take enough of that as it is.  Heck, it's going to be bigger than a lot of amplifiers!

In light of the above, do you want it in a box with a metal plate for the terminals covering it?  In a box with a Plexiglas cover w/terminals mounted to it?  On a nice hardwood board (5 species to choose from) with some type of plastic cover?

Talk about it amongst yourselves and hopefully you'll come to some consensus.  Whatever the majority decides (if there is a majority) - that's what I'll build.  The odd man out is going to pay more if I have to do something different just for him.  If there is no majority, I'll take everybody's ideas under consideration and then build it the way I see fit.  Please be advised that whatever form you pick will have a cost associated with it.  We can make it a plain ol' black box or as pretty as you would like.

Please don't think me a jerk here.  Doing a professional layout on something this big and complex is not a 5 minute job.  To be done correctly, component path lengths must be as short and compact as possible, while considering EM interference from nearby components.  Anybody can plunk some parts on a board and wire it all up.  Ask any EE...board layout can completely make or break a design, regardless of the component quality.  This sucker is going to be using the best parts in the world and consequently expensive - no matter what.  I'm not about to compromise the design or fail to extract every last minutia of performance by being hasty or trying to cram everything into the smallest/cheapest box possible.  I'd rather not do it at all then waste your money and my time.

I'll be standing by.

-Bob

[Freejazz]

Bob,

As a current owner of your Revs, please allow me to say this - you have been exceptionally generous in soliciting everyone's opinion ... however,  I trust that you will design the best crossover you possibly can and you will do everything you can to get it "right" the first time.

To me, that is all I can ask.

Otherwise, I leave the project in your hands - please design "whatever it takes" to most effectively accomplish the above.

Thanks,

Scott

[TomS]

I probably don't get a vote, but...

I'd probably mount the components to a maple base and build MDF enclosure around it with a terminal plate.  That way it could be veneered if desired or just sprayed black.

Tom

[ted_b]

My personal opinion would be to sacrifice looks for sonics.  You tell us what is absolutely table stakes/necessary for design, and give us two or three choices of enclosure, and let us vote (or, as per Scott, just tell us), .  To leave it too open ended risks handing us drawing boards and pencils and coming up with too many options, each of which gets one vote!  All I want is the best signal path, and a sturdy professionally finished box with good connections.

Ted

[Double Ugly]

My personal opinion would be to sacrifice looks for sonics. 

I don't think any mentally stable music-lover will disagree with your opinion, but I've yet to be given any reason to believe sacrifice is necessary. 

I have no doubt Bob will do what *has* to be done to preserve the sonic integrity of the crossovers, so what's left is determining the mounting surface and the enclosure material (if any) to be used.  Assuming I'm right, I'll restate my preference: crossovers mounted on the same hardwood as the cabinets, Plexiglas enclosure.

Reasoning - everyone should like the hardwood selected for their cabinets (otherwise, why get it?), and I believe something as delicate as a speaker crossover should be covered.  Plexiglas will provide adequate protection, and (IMO) the added bonus of allowing Bob's work to be in full view.

Actually, I suppose the hardwood used for mounting could be any of the available options w/o any financial penalty other than that associated w/ more expensive woods.

-Jim

[ooheadsoo]

I think a plexiglass top is a nice touch for showing off how ridiculous (almost in a good way) the components look, but no sweat if the box is all wood.  It's also cool to think how this would make the speakers easily convertible to active when the right components eventually become available.

Is this going to be a revelation only option?

[Bill Baker]

I would like to throw in my personal opinion on this one. Obviously, there is no way this crossover will fit inside the speaker cabinet without making the cabinet a bit bigger to accommodate the size of the components. The no-holds-bar crossover should not have any compromise at all in appearance. When going to the holy grail in components, what's another few bucks to install it in a top notch enclosure as well whether you want to see them or not.
 I think it would be nice to see the x-over in a cabinet made of the same wood chosen for the front baffle of the speakers with a slide-in lexan or Plexiglas top lid.
 Without compromising layout, the whole package needs to look clean as well or else it should be contained within a sealed, solid hardwood enclosure.

 I am sure Bob with consider proper layout before cosmetics but both can be accomplished.

 Obviously, the x-over should be connected to the speakers with speak-on connectors which I am already certain Bob has planned (I know your feelings on this one Bob ) with the "umbilical" cord also using high quality cable (same as used in the speakers).

[Double Ugly]

I am sure Bob with consider proper layout before cosmetics but both can be accomplished.

Yep! 

Obviously, the x-over should be connected to the speakers with speak-on connectors which I am already certain Bob has planned (I know your feelings on this one Bob ) with the "umbilical" cord also using high quality cable (same as used in the speakers).

I agree with this, too.

[Freejazz]

Some pretty straightforward and logical thinking there Bill and Jim ...

Scott

[Karsten]

I'm sure Bob would not mind the speak-on route, only question is if it is a generally accepted standard, personally I don't have a problem with it, but it would prevent people from experimenting with cables a bit.

I'm currently testing newest top of the line copper cable from Bertram Audio here in Denmark, their cables looks like this:



It's properties seems to complement the qualities of the top line cross over very well. Nice tonal balance, good bass, high resolution and wonderfully clean sounding. First impression is actually that something is missing, but what's missing is not supposed to be there in the first place

Karsten

[Bill Baker]

I'm sure Bob would not mind the speak-on route, only question is if it is a generally accepted standard, personally I don't have a problem with it, but it would prevent people from experimenting with cables a bit.

 Hi Karsten,
 The speak-on connectors I mentioned would be used on the cord that connects the x-over to the speaker.
 If I had my way, I would use Speak-on speaker cables as well.

I really like the looks of the Bertram Audio cable. Any chance there is any representation for it here in the states? More info?

[Karsten]

I'm sure Bob would not mind the speak-on route, only question is if it is a generally accepted standard, personally I don't have a problem with it, but it would prevent people from experimenting with cables a bit.

 Hi Karsten,
 The speak-on connectors I mentioned would be used on the cord that connects the x-over to the speaker.
 If I had my way, I would use Speak-on speaker cables as well.

I really like the looks of the Bertram Audio cable. Any chance there is any representation for it here in the states? More info?

I'm speaking to Soeren Bertram on a regular basis, I can ask him about the possibilities.

Karsten