So I have found three variations in the Tower crossover Caps.
Schematic........Config #2................... MY SPEAKERS
..........................Photos below..............(See Photos at bottom)
C1 = 55uF............51.5uF.......................47.6uF
C2 = 75uF............75uF..........................70.8uF
C3 = 33uF............. 33uF.........................33uF
I currently have the 10" Goldwood GW-10PC-4 Heavy Duty Woofers in my cabinets.
I have reached out to Rick at ESS and sent him the Woofer specs and they are recomputing the Cap values of C! and C2 based on the Goldwoods.
I will post his response if folks are interested
We all have seen the version on the original schematic that was leaked on the web.
View attachment 1969865
Then there is this crossover
View attachment 1969867 View attachment 1969868 View attachment 1969869 View attachment 1969870
And then... finally
what I have...
View attachment 1969874 View attachment 1969875 View attachment 1969876
Sure.
Well you figure there is a 10% +/- tolerance in ESS crossovers (as was most speakers in this era) -so these numbers aren't out of line.
Both virtually the same given the 10%-I doubt you could hear the difference-if the caps were the same brand/type.
The woofer voice coil/inductor interaction would be more of a concern IMHO, and how that works with the driving amplifier.
As mentioned-IMHO I would spend the extra$ if possible on the Heil caps.
Mundorfs Evo Oils/Jantzen Superior Z in my experience are well worth the money-there is a significant difference in how the Heil presents itself.
There are layers, and tonalities that are frankly absent with your average Daytons, Solens, etc (too bright to hear any difference anyway).
I have tried more then a few caps with the Great Heils.
Money well spent-my 2 cents worth.
If I was concerned about the crossover physicality in the transmission line-simple fix is a outboard crossover.
ESS made one-ESS just sold out of old stock. They were intended for the Monitors.
The Goldwood is a nice woofer-clean response, like many poly cones/rubber surrounds.
I didn't like them as they lack the transient response and detail of a paper cone and poly ether surrounds.
I found it to be a big difference.
But of course, in some respects matters of taste.
Some prefer the clean, damped response of a poly cone with rubber suspension.
The light paper cones, combined with a fairly unrestrictive poly ether surround-matches the Heils dynamic, and unrestrained, transparent response. Combine this with the superior transient response of a sealed enclosure-and you have the making of a well balanced, highly dynamic, and musical speaker in the making.
Devore, for example spent a lot of time designing a cone suspension with the same properties as poly ether.
Apparently speaker manufactures are afraid of looking "cheap". Fact is cone suspensions wear out-get stiff, etc, rubber, cloth, sanoprean-you name it. The new poly ether is improved over the 70's-90's. Sun is a killer-but eventually is also with rubber and cloth.
The cool thing with poly ether is it easy to obtain, and easy to replace.
Big deal??
You get a brand new suspension when it's worn out-because it's obvious.
I'll take the better transient response, over perceived longevity/quality.
But interestingly enough-ESS went back to paper cones (rubber surrounds).
I'm sure they sound just fine-just a observation-I have gone through a number of different 10" woofers with my AMT3's
Nice job on the cabs!