Never heard little bookshelfs, but big models at audio shows are usually one of the best out-there.
https://www.stereophile.com/content/renaissance-man-damon-von-schweikert-albert-von-schweikert
https://www.stereophile.com/content/renaissance-man-damon-von-schweikert-albert-von-schweikert
(YES)
Having seen some high quality test results of the un-modified VR-1's, and these caps. being good quality poly-caps,
I highly doubt the need to replace them OR the need to modify the speaker in any way !
This thread now seems a little pointless.
I see another irony in that modified filter -those Soniq caps, if memory serves, are allegedly constructed in such a way that they have an 'internal bypass' already built into them making additions in that line a bit pointless, even if you buy into that particular idea -especially with the same cap type. Either way, as noted, I'd leave them alone. The components in there appear to be fine, as you'd expect, and although a well-designed speaker, they weren't titanically expensive when they were current about 2 decades ago.
I've read the reviews and looked a the XO and I'd not try and "improve" what is there, what I would do is add a .5 woofer so the little speakers sit at the correct height, a couple of 8s in a tall box would work for me and maybe about the same cost as the esoteric capacitors
I do enjoy reading about the latest "big thing" in loudspeaker design. This Von Schweikart VR-1 speaker seems to tick all the boxes in loudspeaker hoey!
http://www.soundstagenetwork.com/revequip/vonschweikert_vr1.htm
Contains "VR (Virtual Reality) Design Theory" and "Von Schweikert’s GAIN terminology". This must be New Physics!
Which is not to say it is a bad speaker, IMO.
I did a rough sim based on what I know here, and the red resistors are a modelling device:
Leads to a response a bit like this:
It's a flat power 90 degree phase Butterworth response, of which I quite approve. The bass circuit is something often employed with awkward Scan 6" drivers.
The tweeter crossover might sound cleaner with a higher order design.
The tweeter response is possibly improved by adding a waveguide design which I didn't do in the sim.
Improvements? Well this upgrader has struggled to fit in the new huge capacitors:
Personally I'd be more interested in checking for good connections, deal with any corrosion, and confirming there is no voice-coil rubbing, and even check the ferrofluid in the tweeter, if used, is in good shape.
Best, Steve.
http://www.soundstagenetwork.com/revequip/vonschweikert_vr1.htm
Contains "VR (Virtual Reality) Design Theory" and "Von Schweikert’s GAIN terminology". This must be New Physics!
Which is not to say it is a bad speaker, IMO.
I did a rough sim based on what I know here, and the red resistors are a modelling device:
Leads to a response a bit like this:
It's a flat power 90 degree phase Butterworth response, of which I quite approve. The bass circuit is something often employed with awkward Scan 6" drivers.
The tweeter crossover might sound cleaner with a higher order design.
The tweeter response is possibly improved by adding a waveguide design which I didn't do in the sim.
Improvements? Well this upgrader has struggled to fit in the new huge capacitors:
Personally I'd be more interested in checking for good connections, deal with any corrosion, and confirming there is no voice-coil rubbing, and even check the ferrofluid in the tweeter, if used, is in good shape.
Best, Steve.
But the VR-1 xover-point is 2,5 K, not 1,5 K as your simulation shows.
Tuned to around 30 hz.
Here is 2 different review mesaurements in-room....prytty close.
Hmm, I do, do I? Hadn't thought about it really...
Anywhoo, whilst @luigi seems to have "ridden off into the sunset " as the Americans say, I have been beavering away at that 6" plus 1" VR-1 speaker, a style which I have always found very troublesome indeed.
I may have found a notable improvement. Not boutique capacitors and resistors. No.
It relies on a 4 ohm tweeter, which I have used an 8.2R on the usual 8 ohm jobbie to simulate. And I have made the tweeter coil L3 smaller, which was obvious from the pictures in hindsight.
This looks quite good! And will work with an 8 ohm tweeter with that 8.2R resistor added.
I ran a sim with 6.8uF tweeter capacitor instead of 10uF, and 3.3R in the LCR instead of that outrageously over-specified 25W 10R.
All looks better:
The tweeter gets a gentler rude, so less distortion, and the 5kHz midbass breakup is suppressed more. It never occurred to me to try a 4 ohm tweeter in this sort of thing.
So that is what I would change. Can't be worse, can it? It is a bit more phase-aligned Linkwitz-Riley, of course. So will have a dryer more analytical sound.
Best, Steve.
Anywhoo, whilst @luigi seems to have "ridden off into the sunset " as the Americans say, I have been beavering away at that 6" plus 1" VR-1 speaker, a style which I have always found very troublesome indeed.
I may have found a notable improvement. Not boutique capacitors and resistors. No.
It relies on a 4 ohm tweeter, which I have used an 8.2R on the usual 8 ohm jobbie to simulate. And I have made the tweeter coil L3 smaller, which was obvious from the pictures in hindsight.
This looks quite good! And will work with an 8 ohm tweeter with that 8.2R resistor added.
I ran a sim with 6.8uF tweeter capacitor instead of 10uF, and 3.3R in the LCR instead of that outrageously over-specified 25W 10R.
All looks better:
The tweeter gets a gentler rude, so less distortion, and the 5kHz midbass breakup is suppressed more. It never occurred to me to try a 4 ohm tweeter in this sort of thing.
So that is what I would change. Can't be worse, can it? It is a bit more phase-aligned Linkwitz-Riley, of course. So will have a dryer more analytical sound.
Best, Steve.
Last edited:
@Moondog55, nowhere did I say that these were Visaton drivers. Clearly they are not.
But 6" paper woofers are much of a muchness.
Peerless 830875, which is quite popular:
The main issue is dealing with the peaky cone breakup around 4-5Khz. In which case LCR notches are notches. If the LC notch frequency is known, only the depth or "Q" via a resistor R is a matter of choice.
Bafflestep coil is also a bit of a matter of taste.
But 6" paper woofers are much of a muchness.
Peerless 830875, which is quite popular:
The main issue is dealing with the peaky cone breakup around 4-5Khz. In which case LCR notches are notches. If the LC notch frequency is known, only the depth or "Q" via a resistor R is a matter of choice.
Bafflestep coil is also a bit of a matter of taste.
Maybe, but while reasonable to substitute a known driver for an unknown it may not be correct and many makers do specify an OEM driver with specific parametres that don't conform to the "norm"
You may be correct or then again the speaker designer may have know what they were doing at the speakers selling price point
You may be correct or then again the speaker designer may have know what they were doing at the speakers selling price point
I've heard quite a few pairs of VonSchweikert's at audio shows and they certainly do perform. Their crossover/enclosure designs seem to be a tightly guarded secret. In your case with the VR1's they appear to be one of their more simpler designs. However what still raises the question is what is going on with the crossover? I've been told that they always start out with a 4th order Linkwitz circuit and add to it.
But the question arises: If two different crossover topologies (Linkwitz vs Proprietary VS crossover) measure the same and look similar on paper albeit with different components, will they then sound the same?
I'm also a bit confused on some of their enclosure designs. They seem to like to use the transmission line principal with an a-periodic vent. My understanding is that this is just a ported box that has been critically damped to tone down the impedance curve. I could be wrong though.
I've heard their Endeavor speakers and its silly how much bass they punch out. Far below what I could simulate using software.
But the question arises: If two different crossover topologies (Linkwitz vs Proprietary VS crossover) measure the same and look similar on paper albeit with different components, will they then sound the same?
I'm also a bit confused on some of their enclosure designs. They seem to like to use the transmission line principal with an a-periodic vent. My understanding is that this is just a ported box that has been critically damped to tone down the impedance curve. I could be wrong though.
I've heard their Endeavor speakers and its silly how much bass they punch out. Far below what I could simulate using software.
For starters we are talking about one given set of drivers. Provided those two filters yield exactly the same output at the driver side, so we have fully identical woofer{or tweeter} + filter acoustic transfer functions, they will sound exactly the same. That is how acoustics work: the rest is imagination.
That makes sense.
Now that we have a decent understanding of the crossover design. I’m wondering about the port. I read online that it’s an A-periodic port designed to make the box seem “bigger”? This doesn’t make sense as it is still a port. Although it’s a very very small port that is “periodically tuned to below the drivers resonance”