Good move Granny! I think you will like the PathAudios a lot but be sure to give them a long run in before drawing any conclusions. Mine were initially rather dark in the highs with subdued dynamics and a small, recessed soundstage. But after a few weeks I think they're great. In my case, I was replacing a Duelund CAST, not a Mills, and the PathAudio is a distinct improvement, at least in this one spot. |
Yes the resistors do have a somewhat constipated character right now. They are smooth, but certainly constipated and as you say a tad recessed.
I will report back after another 50 or so hours. |
Reporting back on the Path Audio resistors after full burn in. They are simply beautiful sounding and pull of the balancing act of being very resolving and smooth and the same time. These are a must try for crossovers folks. They are the Duelund/Jupiter caps of the resistor world based on my recent experience. |
Has anyone ever compared the well reviewed ASC 386 power supply caps to the newer Clarity TC line of film power supply caps? The problem with the ASC caps is they are not offered in values over 50-60uf. The Clarity TC caps have values up to 600 uf or so! I want these higher values. These higher uf values also support voltages as high as 600-700 vdc. You can special order TC caps with vdc ratings as high as 1800!
Clarity claims you can replace electrolytic caps with uf values up to 10x higher with their lower uf values and not sacrifice any real capacitance performance attributes. For example a TC cap with a 600uf value compares to an electrolytic cap with up to 3000 uf of capacitance.
I have read reviews saying they sound far better than electrolytics and Solen film caps.
Love to hear any user experiences with the TC line. |
Hi Granny,
I replaced all the stock Nichicon 270uf +/- 20% lytic caps in the power supply with ClarityCap TC caps in my mono amps. I increased the capacitance to 330uf giving an approx. +20% increase in capacitance to the original 270uf +/-20% lytic cap. The amps are fabulous sounding with the increased capacitance. TC are excellent sounding caps when used in this manner. PM me if you have further questions. |
Regarding the exposed copper wires of the Duelund CAST capacitors and inductors, what is the best protection to use? Silk tubbing? Teflon tubbing? Something else?
Thanks,
VPN |
Cut the leads as short as possible is the best thing. If that is not an option then use unbleached cotton. I have multiple xover's using all Duelund and I have found this works best. |
Thanks for the comments Norm. |
Irish65
Good to see you post again!
Have you tried the RS series? I am going to put an order in as replacements for my leaking CAST today.
I found going down much harder to go than it was getting better caps!
For the first time Duelund is making me a bit nervous/concerned. The RS is smaller which I have never found to be great with any style of cap... (unless you just do not have the room) |
Hello Volleyguy1,
I replaced all caps in the secondary paths (except on)of the 4-way crossover and they sound good. I have not done a direct comparison with the Cast which are in primary path. The exception was a Duelund Cast Mylar 220uF in parallel to the 15" drivers, replacing a Solen, and the Cast Mylar sounds better.
As suggested in this forum, I changed all resistors from Duelund Cast to Path Audio and noticed an overall improvement, just sounds more real. Quite happy about it.
Cheers,
VPN |
I just put a second set of those Path Audio resistors in my crossovers and my are they good. |
Beyond capacitors and coils? I am designing a two way active x-over that should be the most transparent active x-over ever made. It will have zero feedback fet buffers and no gain. All parts and power supplies totally top notch. NO pots, switches or push on connectors. Everything will be soldered. The padding of the more sensitive amp will be through the use of soldered resistors. If you have all Dueland silver caps and silver coils and the x-over is simple then you are already set. Every one else will get benefits from an active x-over using state of the art parts and execution. You will be able to select from 6, 12, 18 and 24 db per octave and also vary the xover frequencies (all using soldered pads or changing resistors (very tweaky thang). I hope to bring the x-over in around $1000 (single ended, 2 needed for balanced) and I also have Class A amps coming that will be $1500 for a stereo 25 watt amp. 50 watt monos and 150 watt mono balanced bridged amps for twice as much.
When you have no passive x-over parts the transparency and dynamics are through the roof. The trouble is that no one has ever made a transparent line level x-over. Until now.
I you have a two way speaker then you are in luck. If a three way then you need to either use two of my boxes in series or use something like a Behringer or plate amps or servo woofs on the bottom and use this x-over and two amps on your top two drivers. If you have a 4 way....then sell it...he he! Why would you want something so complex? Have you seen the Hawthorne Audio 700 hz waveguided AMT driver.....$370 each and 96db sensitive. You could mount one of these on top of a box with two sensitive 8s or 10s or one 12 or 15 and use my active xover at 24 db per octave and have a speaker that would kill most things out there. There are lots of possibilities.
I went from a 16 gauge Erse coil on my Neo 10 planar driver to a 14 gauge wax foil coil from Jantzen and it was way better....then going to a 12 gauge got even better...dynamics and transparency galore....but I look at the big 12 gauge coil and I think...."man, that is still a lot of copper the signal has to go through"....I cannot wait till I bi-amp the speaker. Well, tri-amp really. Since I already use servo woofers up to 200hz. |
Very interesting. Why would an active be any better in general. I use all top line copper parts from Jupiter, Duelund, Path Audio etc..... Why would an active sound better? I like that it can be adjusted and fine tuned, but the sound? |
Hi Salectric,
Which position do you still perfer the duelund resistors? |
Actually I no longer use any Duelund resistors. Just Mills and PathAudio. |
The parts are much smaller and purer sounding at line level than at speaker level. Your giant Path Audio resistor is no where near straight wire compared to a very tiny surface mount thin film resistor. The speaker is a low impedance device that needs lots of current. The parts you use for x-overs are super large and inductive. Lossy. When you can drive the speakers directly from a low impedance source (amp direct) and not have the veiling sound of passive parts you get way more dynamic and pure sound. Now, this is relative. Like I said, if you have a simple passive x-over using all silver Dueland coils and caps then the loss is very minimal...and until now there have been no line level x-overs that are very pure. My line level x-over will start at around $1000....add $1500 for my new Class A 25 watt a channel amp....and another $1000 for the extra interconnect and speaker wire and you get $3500....not cheap....but far cheaper than silver Duelands! Plus you can use many different drivers and cross over at different frequencies. A 10 gauge coil on a midrange or woof can sound great....but as good as the driver with no coil? Another word for coil...is choke....that is what it does to the sound. |
Interesting. I have found large parts point to point wired with large gauge solid core wire to sound better than any circuit board loaded with surface mounted resistors and those tiny electrolytic caps etc...
This subject is most interesting and I would have to compare in the end and decide which is indeed better. I don't buy into the thought that tiny parts are inherently better sounding. That has not been my experience, but it can certainly be true of a particular design. No absolutes.
I have a two way speaker with a very simple crossover design and perhaps I can compare in the future. |
A line-level crossover means biamping or triamping which definitely makes your system more complicated. For those of us with tube monoblocks, it means an additional 2 or even 4 amplifiers, each with its own power cord and mounting stand. If you obsess over coupling capacitors and other components, biamping also means doubling the number of parts to worry about.
My experience with biamping is limited to xover frequencies of 250Hz and below, but even with a relatively low xover frequency I found it was important for the amplifiers to be identical; otherwise there were obvious discontinuities in the sound. In particular, using a solid state amp on the bass and tubes for the mids and highs didn't work well at all. I am pretty sure the matching issue will be even more important with a higher xover like 1K.
There is also the issue of possible damage to delicate midrange and HF drivers. Ordinarily a small cone or compression driver will be protected from low frequency noise or amplifier turnon thumps by the xover capacitors. In a biamp setup the ampifier outputs are wired directly to the speaker and any LF signals like this go right to the driver without any filtering. With compression drivers costing so much, that's not a risk I want to take.
I have heard of people who have biamplified or triamplified systems who are very happy with the results. For my tastes, however, that's a move in the wrong direction. I prefer to simplify wherever possible. |
Salectric,
That is a well stated reply and I agree with your perspective . As Bill said I'd like to compare both approaches directly. I don't believe active Xovers inherently superior to a good quality simple passive one. |
I don't use any electrolytic caps in my xover (there are no coupling caps except for the filter caps)....only tiny polyprops. As far as resistors....you can easily to a straight wire bypass on a one ohm resistor.....just add it to the output of a low impedance line source...like your preamp. You can get a one ohm Pathaudio or Mills resistor and a .1% Susuma surface mount resistor (10 cents each) and listen....I know what you will hear. It won't be in favor of the giant thang (otherwise we would all be using giant resistors in our gear). The reason for giant resistors is that they need to be large to handle the current and wattage at speaker level or the voltage/wattage when using in high voltage tube electronics.
If you have 6db per octave x-over then you really don't need an active x-over.....at least on the top end. Coils really muck up the sound on a two way. Yes, bi-amping or tri-amping is not simple.....but with the right equipment and drivers can be incredible. The dynamics from a midrange and woofs without the coils is spectacular. What is for certain....is that there has never been a great line level x-over before. So, anyone who has tried this with what is currently available has no idea how good it can be. Even the one that Rockport sells with their $200,000 speaker is full of opamps!!! yikes! op amps are fine for the bass...but above that....not!!! |
Regarding active bi-amping, I tried for several months, with a Pass XVR-1 (upgraded pot to Dact), and two pairs of Kell fpb 750mcx. Tried many alternative settings, with one pair driving directly the two 15" woofers of each speaker, and the other driving the remaining 3-way passive crossover. Measured, listened, changed, measured, listened, changed, many times.
The sound with just the passive external crossover, with the Duelund (caps/inductors) and Path Audio resistors is so much more open and fleshed out than biamping that I finally gave up and I am selling the crossover and second pair of monos.
I considered trying the new active crossover designed by Nelson Pass, the First Watt B4, that now uses top components such as discrete Vishay resistors and Toshiba JFET transistors (US$1500), but I decided I am done with biamping.
Quite happy about the sound of my system with my new external passive crossovers. |
Yes, your crossover is simple so an active xover would have to be seriously transparent for it to make any difference. The First Watt B4 is similar to the one I am designing....except mine is super way more tweak and pure. No switches, no pots, better power supply, modded Wima caps in power supply, better wire, jacks, resistors, etc.
Yesterday talked to my friend who owns the Hawthorne Audio 700 hz AMTs. He put it in place of his Scanspeak beryllium tweet in his active three way (highly modded Behringer x-over). He was crossing the tweet in at 3K but now can cross the AMT in at 700hz....he says it is way better....his midrange is an Audio Tech driver in a carbon fiber ball. He is using just 12 db per octave. He says the very top of the beryllium is slightly more open but the AMT is changing each hour as he burns it in....so it might even equal the beryllium in the very top once broken in......but having a super fast AMT go all the way down to 700hz is killer....he says its "electrostatic like". So, even a simple 12 db per octave passive xover could be used in a killer two way. A couple of fast high efficient 10s that would match the 97db sensitivity of the AMT and you have one seriously dynamic and transparent speaker. Me want! He is going to lend me the AMTs after I get my xover done and I will try running two B&G Neo 10s from 250 to 700.....along with my servo woofs underneath. Class A amps on both the Neo 10s and the AMT. I am drooling! |
Ricevs,
Ricevs,
I liked the First Watt B4 concept of having an attenuator select so either the low pass or the high pass, only one, uses an attenuator. The other one does not have an attenuator in the signal path. Makes sense. I, for example you use the attenuator only in the Low Pass.
The parts in the W4 are very high quality, Vishay 1% metal film resistors, Wima caps, Toshiba jfets, so I am curious to know more about your new XO. When will it be ready? Will it have balanced inputs and outputs?
VPN |
In my x-over you will also get to choose which amp to attenuate....However, you will be using fixed resistors (way better than any pot) to do the padding. Also there will not be switches in the path to choose which amp gets padded. Everything will be done with push connectors that you can press wire or resistors in. This includes all the filter resistors. The B4 uses switches to change all the frequencies....these are in the signal path. There will also be on the board holes to solder world class resistors in instead of using the push connectors and also pads for world class surface mount resistors. My buffers are also Toshiba but I am using them single ended which will eliminate the resistors and pots that the B4 has on the output of his buffers.
The term "Vishay resistors" no longer means much. Years ago, before Vishay bought a bunch of companies....Vishay meant the bulk foil super expensive resistors....now, Vishay means almost anything. The "Vishay" resistors that are used in the B4 are generic and I am pretty sure not picked for sound. The Wima caps are great and I will be using those too but I will mark every cap for outside foil and orient them in the sonically best direction (to ground or output). The basic resistors I use will be better than generic Vishay and you can then substitute the worlds best resistors and either press them in to the connectors or solder them in (most tweak of all).
In order to have balanced you will have to buy two and use each one as a mono balanced x-over.
You really don't need an active xover with your speakers.....you need better speakers.....oh, oh I done did it...he he...The concept that Dunlavy used was great (six db per octave, time aligned, D-appolito, felting) but his drivers were just ordinary (also his cabinet construction). Today, the level of drivers in the mids and highs is way beyond those drivers (I played with them many years ago and even then they were not that great). I am glad you have at least upgraded the tweeter. If you used the Hawthorne AMTs with a couple of super efficient 10s and bi-amped them with my xover and then used your giant thangs as subs.....you would be in heaven. The Hawthorne AMT goes to 700hz is 97 db efficient and is dipole....just sit it on top of the cabinet and time align (and isolate). I am sure your super modded speakers are fantastic (not to mention, you spent a lot of money on x-over parts). So, new speakers are probably not on your table....just sayin'... I guess I am just excited about what bi-amping using my new Class A amps and these AMTs can do....I cannot wait! |
Ricevs,
You crossovers will likely be top notch. I have an electronic engineering degree, so I can appreciate the concepts you mentioned.
You mentioned that I need better speakers. Well, if I hear any that are better than my modded Dunlavy SC-VI, I will certainly consider buying them.
After the new external crossover and tweeter upgrade, I have not heard any speaker better than them (for my taste, musical preferences). I have heard many ultra-expensive new speakers recently (several of the top speakers you can think of), and I found out I like mine better. So I am now focusing on buying in an analog front end...
Regarding the 5" midrange Vifa drivers, I have considered changing them and analyzed every similar spec midrange there is. However, what I read that people did not like about their sound has been solved by the new crossovers, so it is not clear to me there is much to improve, they sound spectacular now. Maybe one day I may experiment to see if a new top quality mid (with very close specs) works better.
Regarding the driver you mentioned, I never listened to it (you have not listened to my modded speakers either), so I don't know if they are better or not.
Cheers |
Interesting.
This thread oddly enough started with bi-amped Linn speakers. Linn also is into Aktiv. (as they call it)
In terms of value for the $ I think straight bi-amp or tri-amp is maybe the worst value! In my speakers I could barely hear the difference of a second $5k amp running through a crossover made with max. $20 in parts...
Yet I could hear easily changing cheap crossover parts to better ones.
Sometimes the change was so great like CAST tweeter caps I thought I wired something up wrong...
This would go back to a balance Steen Duelund had talked about 50% of the $ in the speakers, 50% of the $ in the speakers in the crossover.
Here I am fretting over not having CAST in a single spot in the integrated amp. (with Duelund RS being the likely replacement)
Going active would mean three amps with CAST caps plus the cost of the active crossover... Plus three times the Duelund Silver 2.0 wire.
I have yet to ever hear small parts sound better so what would an active crossover cost with big parts?
It is not a road I am going down as I am already on the simple few high quality part road. |
Volley guy I accept the concept that there are many roads to good sound quality. I however agree with you the road I prefer is of one very high-quality amplifier driving a speaker with a simple crossover network that uses few but high quality parts. The Deulund CAST tweeter cap is such an asset in my speaker. Simple step with big results. |
Ricevs, I have to thank you for mentioning the upgrade of bypassing all binding posts for better sound on your website. We all agree that better parts equal better sound in crossovers and spend big money on the right parts. Funny thing is we live with our signal being degraded by the binding posts. No matter how good the posts are they degrade the signal.
I now use the binding posts on my amp to simply clamp the speaker wire and output signal wire of the amp together. I actually soldered the output of my crossover directly to my speaker cable using no binding posts or spades. You don't have to go this far, but you can certainly just use your speaker binding posts as clamps removing them from the signal path.
Folks this is a significant upgrade that is free! Just takes some DIY effort and execution. |
Grannyring and Ricevs
I am going to try this as well. I know removing a screw in the woofer signal was one of the biggest upgrades I have got so far and it cost nothing.
It was truly shocking the signal went through a cheap screw.
Duelund RS caps are here. I would say about 40% shorter than CAST. Hopefully a chance to install very soon. |
I know this thread is mostly about capacitors in speaker crossovers but there have also been a number of comments about caps in electronics. For the past year I have been using a 1uf Duelund CAST as the output coupler for my phono preamp. Prior to this I had a .47uf CAST for a few months and then before that a 2.0uf V-Cap TFTF. Recently I replaced the 1uf CAST with the 2uf V-Cap, the same one that had been there before, and I was a little surprised to find that overall I prefer the V-Cap.
The V-Cap may not be quite as neutral in tonal balance as the CAST but it more than makes up for this by having a more lively sound with excellent micro-dynamics. They are both very good sounding caps and I can see how other people might reach the opposite conclusion, but to my ears and for my system the V-Cap is better.
For what it's worth, my preamps now use V-Cap TFTF exclusively and my power amps use V-Cap CuTF couplers. |
I have a question for Charlesdad and other members who have changed the coupling cap in Frankenstein Amplifier. I am inclined to get Duelund Cast-PIO .47uF 630V. I see that Jupiter is what most people have tried. Size of Duelund capacitors is 1-5/16" x 2-7/16". Would this fit inside Frank. Jupiter is 13/16" x 2". Excuse me if this sidetracks the main theme of this thread. |
Sstalwar, you can spend more for the Duelund, but they will not sound as good or certainly not sound any better than the Jupiter copper foil cap. I have used both in numerous electronics, tube amps etc... This has been my experience.
I find the Jupiters to be a bit more lively, better in micro details, and not as tipped up sounding in the upper mids. This has been my experience with both these caps in tube amps.
It is reasonable to suggest that these caps will perform the same way in your tube amp. Both are very good caps indeed and you can't go wrong with either, but the CAST caps are lots more money. |
Thanks Grannyring. My system right now is very optimized to be very neutral , resolving and dynamic. Exactly where it should be.
Capacitor upgrade is pretty academic but if anything, I would like to make my system tip towards warmth. Can always use more body to instruments. Better separation of instruments along with width and depth wont hurt either.
Oh, again, not that anything is missing right now, but spending money on capacitors should do more of what I enjoy. Little more warmth and I am happy.
So, which direction should I be going? Thanks. |
The Jupiter has been a very fine addition in my amplifier. I do not believe it is any better than the CAST but it is certainly less costly. Both top level choices. The CAST provided me pure magic in my DAC and speakers, no question. Personally I'd take either over the V cap alternatives. At least for me the CAST is a stunning product. It would be a tight fit in the Frankenstein but would work I believe . |
Have anybody ever tried the new Duelund CAST silver/copper hybrid capacitor? As far as the PCX declared the CU/AG excels in mass of body, liquidity together with neutrality and naturalness.
The price difference between the CU and CU/AG hybrid is approx. 20%.
Merry Christmas. |
Sstalwar
If you are looking for warmth and that is your #1 need, then don't purchased the Duelund,Jupiter, or Vcap. They will not give you added warmth. In electronics the Jupiters would be the best choice of the three for your needs as the non-pancake style CAST is simply too tipped in the upper mids for added warmth. Again, this is in tube electronics with the non-pancake style CAST cap. But even the Jupiter, which is very smooth, will not give you "warmth".
The best choice is the Jupiter HT aluminum in wax which is one step down in price from the copper. I like the flat stacked, but the round is very similiar. It is a warm and very musical cap. Based on your needs I highly reccommend this cap. I have used it and quickly came to enjoy the warm presentation and full bodied personality of this cap. It is a big step over a Solen Fast Cap. Is it as detailed and lively as the Vcap, CAST, or copper Jupiter? NO. Does it have more of a warm, inviting and full bodied character, well yes indeed.
It is by no means thick and dark. It is more resolving than your common Solen etc...and the perfect choice based on your sonic desires.
Merry Christmas to all! |
Grannyring, I appreciate your insight. Thanks. |
Ordered a pair of Jupiter Cu foil. Thank you Grannyring and Charles for the help in deciding. |
Zeroabedo,
I am also looking forward hearing the comparison of anyone who is able hear and compare the Duelund CAST-cu caps with the new Duelund CAST-cu/ag hybric caps in a Crossover.
Thanks,
VPN |
Merry Christmas to all.
I have much to read on here to "catch up".
I guess we all have different preferences when listening and what we can forgive. Grannyring finds the CAST too tipped upward for warmth. In comparison to Jupiter I would not argue. I have had to turn up the treble in my system when using the Jupiter.
Wax clearly tilts the sound down to me and is dull. I find a loss of high frequency energy and a loss of realism. I have yet to install the Duelund RS which is wax as well.
They could be of the same as Jupiter. I think they will have more energy due to the much larger size but might tilt sound down?
Oil is livelier but (to me) more realistic. To me oil lets the signal flow and really on the high freq and wax is very good at noise reduction. I am sure wax by nature would have less noise than oil.
I also find the Jupiter's not to be of real world dynamics. This could be a simple fix a MUCH bigger capacitor. If the Jupiter was 5x bigger??? Hmmm...
This is not to say I do not like Jupiter caps they are very quiet. To me the best I have heard so far is CAST.
Clearly though Duelund thought something good of wax if they used it in the RS series. I have used my vintage tweeter inductor over the Duelund VSF I have. My gut feeling is oil is better but harder to control resonance and wax is a cheap way to do it, but at a cost of liveliness.
I will try and get the RS installed tomorrow... That way it can be wax vs. oil.
Duelund vs. Duelund (unfortunately from memory of CAST) I do know about how much better CAST was than Jupiter Copper Paper Tube. |
Volley, I assume you let the Jupiters break in for some 200 hours? They do sound more laid back at first, but open up nicely over time. They are more open sounding with more air than the CAST in my system. Last thing I would ever say is I need to turn up the treble with them. I can't even get my mind around that reaction? My system is very resolved however.
I can understand the difference in perceived dynamics between the two caps.
My comments are based on use in tube electronics, DAC's and speakers where I have compared both. I am referring to the non-pancake style CAST caps in my comments also. |
It may be that in an initially "warmer" or more forgiving system the CAST work nicely to deliver the end sound. In an already highly resolved set up the Jupiter caps work nicely. Just my attempt to understand our separate observations Volley. |
To my ears, the CAST caps are all a bit lacking in air and high-frequency extension. I posted that several months ago in this thread and I still feel that way. That is true of the 100v pancake CAST caps as well as the high-voltage cylindrical CAST caps.
I have a theory that the CAST caps may be better suited for solid-state based systems than tubes. I can see how the HF characteristic might do a good job taming the HF emphasis of most solid-state amps.
For my money, however, I choose V-Caps, both TFTF and CuTF, over the CAST. They provide the treble qualities that I need and as a bonus have more subtle inner detail than the CAST.
Of course, it's possible that the all-silver CAST or the new hybrid copper-silver CAST caps may provide the air, delicacy and sparkle missing from the copper CAST. But somebody else will have to investigate those options. I have decided to stop shipping money to Denmark. |
Ya, the price of those silver caps would be about as much as the speakers themselves:) |
Volleyguy,
As we both know, it's impossible to declare one capacitor the"best" for every listener in any/all systems. The responses here reflect that. All I can do is offer specific individual experiences and go with what I hear. I think we're similar in our admiration for the CAST. Theoretically if I had to limit myself to "only" one capacitor choice, give me the CAST. They bring the music alive and provide marvelous realism. No question the Jupiter is excellent in my very revealing/transparent SET amplifier. I just believe the CAST would be at lease as good if not better. Both are superb products overall. |
|
I have an all tube based system and am very pleased with the performance of the CAST-Cu capacitors in the speaker crossover. |
Grannyring
For sure on the 200 hours. (much more)
I am not anti Jupiter and will be installing more. The phono stage in this amp will be all Jupiter. They are very quiet. For the money not bad...
The caps mentioned on here are all good ones. The VCap Cuft I have tried are lightning fast but just not my cup of tea.
It has been mentioned on here before put 10 people in front of TV's and you might get a consensus on best picture on sound, no way...
I like horn speakers so my brain must forgive their faults and focus on the strengths. (which to most is dynamics)
The CAST I believe was designed for horn speakers. |
The Tannoy Westminster crowd that is putting in CAST love them.
I find CAST is stunning in dynamics. The Jupiter's are good at the noise reduction but the dynamics are just not there. Now if the cap was 5x bigger???
My guess is someone who likes horn speakers will love CAST.
I have not heard CAST in non horn speakers so I can not comment in that area.
I wish there was a measurement of how much energy was stored in each cap. My guess is CAST stores the most has ultra low resonance, Jupiter very low noise but would store less energy and the VCap would charge and discharge the fastest. |
In all the testing I have done in 4 years here I have yet to find the smaller capacitor be more dynamic than a bigger one given a cap of the same style.
The Mundorf Supreme was much more dynamic than a Sonicap...
I expect the Duelund RS to be more dynamic than the Jupiter. (much bigger) possibly less dynamic than a CAST as it is smaller.
Tony Gee seemed to quite like the RS second best cap was his take. |
