Both the fuse and level control were bypassed. Not satisfied with this MUCH more natural and transparent sound. I played around with the power resistor pad glued to the back of the crossover plate. They use a 4ohm followed by a 2ohm at the x-over input. I settled on replacing the 4ohm with around 3.5ohm. Kicks up the tweeter about 1/2 db or so. Also the input wires terminate at 1 set of binding posts now. I absolutely hate the MUDDY sound of bi-wired speakers. This way no jumper is needed. I also have the speaker up off the floor about 2 1/2 inches. Right now I actually removed the added stuffing . Instead, I added a small foam strip to the woofer dust cover cone centers. This makes the cone play a bit lower and more defined. May add back some fill if needed. Also, they use fiberglass in the midrange enclosures. Polyfill gives a more open detailed sound, so that was changed too. If I had a 20,000 speaker in my room, it would be subject to the same tweaking. The hobby is all about getting the speaker to work for you. |
Both the fuse and level control were bypassed. Not satisfied with this MUCH more natural and transparent sound. I played around with the power resistor pad glued to the back of the crossover plate. They use a 4ohm followed by a 2ohm at the x-over input. I settled on replacing the 4ohm with around 3.5ohm. Kicks up the tweeter about 1/2 db or so. Also the input wires terminate at 1 set of binding posts now. I absolutely hate the MUDDY sound of bi-wired speakers. This way no jumper is needed. I also have the speaker up off the floor about 2 1/2 inches. Right now I actually removed the added stuffing . Instead, I added a small foam strip to the woofer dust cover cone centers. This makes the cone play a bit lower and more defined. May add back some fill if needed. Also, they use fiberglass in the midrange enclosures. Polyfill gives a more open detailed sound, so that was changed too. If I had a 20,000 speaker in my room, it would be subject to the same tweaking. The hobby is all about getting the speaker to work for you. |
Interesting mods you have done to your CV. Bypassing the fuse makes sense, but did you put an ohm meter on the L-pad to determine the proper attenuation and make up the difference with resistors? Proper zobel configured? Curious as to how it increased bass response. Reducing the port will give a bit more mid bass definition, interesting that you have added stuffing in the box. I have not opened up my CV's yet, curious to take a look now. I am in the process of rebuilding a pair of D's with a friend. We have built new cabinets and the front has a nice 3/4 inch roundover to take care of the edge defraction.(felt on front) Upgrading some of the xo caps and all resistors. Good to see others not affraid to experiment with their speakers. All I can say is that I will never trade my CV. Many speakers have come and gone in my living rm, the CV just do too many things right to my ears, even though they are big ass boxes. Mark |
I have recently aquired a mint pair of CV. They obviously were rarely if ever played. At first the bass was incredibly boomy and ill defined. Now the bass is somewhat shy in my room after 'breakin'. I have done the following. The tweeter level control and fuse have been bi-passed. To bring up the bass level. The rear port has been reduced in diameter and the empty space at the bottom filled with poly/fiberglass wool. I also removed that stick on foam from the front. Have treated the mid/tweet with my own method of tuning with weather strip foam. The CV is exremely low in coloration, plays loud/dynamic and clear, has a very open soudstage. The midbass and lower mids i do find to be a bit recessed. I am using ss amp-tube pre combo. All my tweaks are completely reversible to preserve resale value. I think you could spend 8k retail today and have no better a speaker than the CV. |
A Snell shoot out...
I have C/Vs and EIIs. I've listened to the others - the various generations and variations of Js, Ks, Es, Ds, B Minors, etc. I think they were all very good speakers. It's interesting, I think, to see the way the design approach changed from Peter Snell to Kevin Voecks. I have a pair of Snell Cis still hanging around, and I have the final C-family C/V. Entirely different approach, entirely different character. Those old Cis are still a pretty nice speaker (I'm selling them if anyone's interested...). Looking at the C models in between the original C and the C/V you can watch the approach shift.
I'm having a difficult time right now with the C/Vs. I just moved and they are not liking the new room I've got them set up in. This has happened before. Without resorting to lots of room treatments, I've been VERY pleased with the results by setting up the C/Vs in a space that is far away from corners, has high ceilings, and essentially no or very little wall behind the listener.
This is space that would probably work for many other speakers, too, which I've also found, but the C/Vs seem to be a little harder for me to set up. The C/V is an exciting speaker dynamically, but it's also very finesseful, all good things in my book, so I'm going to keep trying to make them work. Could just be me...
The D, C, and B are all very nice speakers. The C/Vs and Bs have that great low end. Lots of very good quality oomph. The Js and Es have nice LF impact and texture, but aren't as extended. But of all these speakers, I may actually say I like the Ds best. I say this simply because in my experience they come close the the overall impact of the C/Vs but they do the best disappearing act for me of any of these speakers. Plus, they're a little less imposing and less costly.
- SJ |
B minor is a very good speaker. The mids are about the same as the CV, but they have a nice 12" side firing woofer in them. Oh so slightly better bass response. Both very dynamic, neutral mids, slightly warm low end. The CV rocks with their duel 8"s. They are both very close. During the mid 90's, Snell had some keepers. Mark |
What about the B minors? How do they compare to the other models of this era? |
I own EIII & CV Snells, M's and cc1 center. I did own the type D before I traded them for the CV. The EIII I think are an outstanding value. I originally traded my EIII for the D's and found myself wishing I had my E's back. The D's have a fuller midrange and go deeper, but the EIII is more musical to my ears. So I bought a used pair, made new cabs and modded the xo. I have replaced the caps in the tweeter circuit w/Theta caps(big improvement). Also replaced the sandcast resistors with mills, upgraded a few caps in the woofer circuit. Don't change the inductors. Internal wiring for tweet as well upgraded. The EIII match well with tubes, they really come to life with my diyhi Ella tube amp. The CV just plain rock. Mark |
I owner a pair of E's III for sometime 10 or so years ago, sold them due to the hype of another "flavor of the month club" speaker..big mistake. To this day, I miss them. |
Hi, I have snell KIIv, EIII & D.
KIIv are very good speakers but with some limits...
Type EIII are incredible speakers...you know. very special sound....tubes or not. A very dinamic sound specially in the mid-high frequencies...
Bass frequencies are very good only a little long but very powerful.
Type D are very neutral in all frequencies. Much more dinamic & control, much more coherents. Mid, much more clean & precise. More definition but not more fatique.
Anyway Type EIII are great speakers with a sound that have presence and a lot of air. |
I really appeciate your comment!
Actually, I own the E/III for 12 years. Several times I tried to replace them for new speakers, taking home various speakers from a hi-end dealer, but after a month's euphoria I came back to Snells. I decided to keep them for a while as my second pair of loudspeakers. It is true that they sound better with more powerful solid-state amps, though they sounded great with Audio Innovations and Audio Note amps as well.
Best regards,
Alexander |
Although I've not owned any Snells, I've got to agree with John--I've never heard a Snell (pre-Boston Acoustics) that didn't sound great.
I have heard, and really liked, the E/III but not in comparison with the D. The E was very well made, very coherent, and fun to listen to. My suspicion is that they tend to work better with good solid state--that is when I've heard them sound their best.
So I'd say you're unlikely to go wrong with either one.
Best,
Bob |
|
I have owned the E IV and the D. The D has a fuller more dynamic sound, more like the C V. I can not speak about the E III since I have not heard them, but can also say I have not heard a Snell speaker that did not sound good. Just some sound much better than others.
JOhn |
|
If you can ,find type B or B minor.These were unsurpassed by Snell even when they were still a high end brand (before Boston Acoustics bought them)I have type B and will never give it up,their midrange blows away electrostatics.I know that type C/IV was very good too.Take care. |
