Kinda wish the OP had posted pics and component values on all those Snell crossovers, just for posterity. None of my bidness really - alas, I've never seen a pair of Snell in the flesh.
Speaker Help Request: Snell K/II
- Thread starter baco99
- Start date
I have them traced somewhere, but almost no two crossovers are exactly alike.
That was kinda my point - if there are that many variations it might be good for other owners in the future to know what some of them were.
Did they change the circuit design or just randomly substitute different component values? I got the impression it was the latter.
Did they change the circuit design or just randomly substitute different component values? I got the impression it was the latter.
Seems I remember some deal about Snell tuning the crossovers for each pair of speakers...wait a second...
http://audiokarma.org/forums/index.php?threads/snell-j-iii-crossover-question.762400/
So maybe that was intentional.
http://audiokarma.org/forums/index.php?threads/snell-j-iii-crossover-question.762400/
So maybe that was intentional.
my honest assessment, the individualized tuning theory doesn't hold water. Snell was pumping hundreds of speakers out of the Haverhill factory. it was BUZZING. there's no way Peter Snell sat there and tuned each pair by ear, thereby requiring his technicians to tear down each speaker and add a cap here, or a resistor there. it's just not possible.
the more plausible scenario is they bought parts in huge bulk lots, like most folks, and used what they had. if it was close enough, it was boxed and sent.
and there's really no point in showing the crossovers because each one looks different! even from sequential pairs.
^^ good advice there. I hardly consider that when recapping old crossovers. I wonder if they had some bad solder or bad flux or just bad assembly technicians? 
Kevin Voecks spoke a bit about it in a Stereophile interview, here (https://www.stereophile.com/content/kevin-voecks-loudspeakers-crossovers-rooms-page-2) - maybe hyperbole, but it's hard not to take this literally:
"I think this is an incredibly important point about Snell—we all know that tiny amplitude response differences are very, very critical; a tenth of a dB in level change over a third of an octave or more is something that would be demonstrably audible in blind listening tests. So if you think about most drivers being manufactured to a tolerance of, say, ±4dB, typically, it's ridiculous. So we first screen the drivers to make them fit within a particular window. Then we adjust the crossover components so that a specific driver's characteristics, when used with this individually tuned crossover system, will result in amplitude response within ±0.5dB of the original reference speaker that made. In practice we approach more like ±0.25dB, but what we're guaranteeing is 0.5dB."
Maybe for the TOTL where they sold a couple a month. But for Ks, Js, Es...? I doubt it.
Also would be possible to take, say, 500 drivers and divide them into groups of similar response. Then you only have to make mods to the crossover to address each group - maybe only a handful of groups or even just 2 or 3.
I realize that would require testing all the drivers though, which itself is a job that takes time. Even if you had a jig and an automated test circuit all set up, you still have to handle them.
So we have two possible explanations for variation between crossovers: they played fast and loose with available parts, or they did exactly the opposite.
I realize that would require testing all the drivers though, which itself is a job that takes time. Even if you had a jig and an automated test circuit all set up, you still have to handle them.
So we have two possible explanations for variation between crossovers: they played fast and loose with available parts, or they did exactly the opposite.
Or some happy medium in between. Testing batches for example.
Also, I’ve seen and tested some of their drivers... Mostly supplied by Peerless, Vifa, and Audax. Tolerances are on the order of 15-20%, not 4%. I don’t even think TAD drivers are that closely matched. Manufacturer’s would have to throw away entire lots of speakers depending on the relative humidity of the building.
I love Snell speakers. I’m not bashing them at all. I just think these types of claims need to be taken with a grain of salt.
Also, I’ve seen and tested some of their drivers... Mostly supplied by Peerless, Vifa, and Audax. Tolerances are on the order of 15-20%, not 4%. I don’t even think TAD drivers are that closely matched. Manufacturer’s would have to throw away entire lots of speakers depending on the relative humidity of the building.
I love Snell speakers. I’m not bashing them at all. I just think these types of claims need to be taken with a grain of salt.
It may depend on how you're measuring. That's probably a can of worms that's beyond the scope of the thread we're hijacking. 
I'd love to know the real truth of what they did / how they did it - maybe someday a Snell employee of that era will surface and explain.
Until then maybe we can start by counting the coils on our OEM Snell inductors.
Until then maybe we can start by counting the coils on our OEM Snell inductors.
I have a set of Snell Type C’s that Baco99 redid the crossovers on. I also have a set of E II’s that Gordonw redid the crossovers on. The approach each took was totally different. On the E II’s from Gordonw, he was a purist and did the crossovers exactly to the originals, to include bundling the caps. His thought was this was done for a reason. Gordon knows his stuff and many of you know he even builds amps that are first rate. I actually got the chance to hear one of his amps go up against VAC Statment amps. Very impressive indeed.
Baco99 has a much different approach. He did my Type C’s. On those crossovers, he took the caps and really cleaned up the number of caps used as well as how things were laid out. Much more modern and looking more like a modern speakers crossovers.
So how do each sound? The E II’s are just a bit warm, but clearer than the originals were. They are spacious and throw a really wide sound stage. The Type C’s are a bit more analytical. Bass is wonderful and treble can be strong on certain recordings. I believe the Type C’s really show a bad recording much better, because well done recordings are amazing.
So what would I choose? I can’t. They each have their strengths. I believe the Tyoe C’s are going to be more equipment and cable sensitive than the E II’s. Gordon and Brian did amazing work and I would recommend either one.
Baco99 has a much different approach. He did my Type C’s. On those crossovers, he took the caps and really cleaned up the number of caps used as well as how things were laid out. Much more modern and looking more like a modern speakers crossovers.
So how do each sound? The E II’s are just a bit warm, but clearer than the originals were. They are spacious and throw a really wide sound stage. The Type C’s are a bit more analytical. Bass is wonderful and treble can be strong on certain recordings. I believe the Type C’s really show a bad recording much better, because well done recordings are amazing.
So what would I choose? I can’t. They each have their strengths. I believe the Tyoe C’s are going to be more equipment and cable sensitive than the E II’s. Gordon and Brian did amazing work and I would recommend either one.
ATTENTION!
I should receive a "comeuppance" for my comments above regarding the late Peter Snell's individualized tuning of loudspeakers to produce perfectly matched pairs.
I recently met someone who worked at Snell Acoustics in the 1980s and 1990s, granted in the cabinet making division and not in acoustics or senior management. I brought up this lore about Peter Snell personally tuning speakers before they left the factory, and guess what he told me.... It was ABSOLUTELY TRUE! He said they used to sell 12-14 Type A's a week, and several hundred of the other models. Peter would personally test each and every one of them, making subtle tweaks to each one, before have someone make the final adjustments and then box them and send them to Shipping.
I was wrong!
I live a life full of doubt!
Mea culpa. Please forgive me.
I should receive a "comeuppance" for my comments above regarding the late Peter Snell's individualized tuning of loudspeakers to produce perfectly matched pairs.
I recently met someone who worked at Snell Acoustics in the 1980s and 1990s, granted in the cabinet making division and not in acoustics or senior management. I brought up this lore about Peter Snell personally tuning speakers before they left the factory, and guess what he told me.... It was ABSOLUTELY TRUE! He said they used to sell 12-14 Type A's a week, and several hundred of the other models. Peter would personally test each and every one of them, making subtle tweaks to each one, before have someone make the final adjustments and then box them and send them to Shipping.
I was wrong!
I live a life full of doubt!
Mea culpa. Please forgive me.
CKDC
Super Member
The question remains: How did Snell test each and every one of them?
You are telling us that Snell listened to every speaker including the relatively low cost K and pulled the crossover, tweaked something on the crossover and then put it back? On several hundred speakers, per week?
Have I got that right?
that is what I am telling you. it's been "lore" for a long time. but having it confirmed from some one who worked at the factory. He said he just did it. Had a testing room. they'd bring in the speakers with some kind of "rig" and he would dictate what crossover components to use from the parts bin and then someone would walk them off and make the changes.