Well, Brian, I do not think we here are in a competition whose way is more innovative, also the RX corrector do not use any air caps, and I do not know why you refer to them.

Unquestionably the idea to milk a transformer and to use its inductance to write the curve is very powerful and interesting. I spoke with the author of the article (it was published 4-5 years ago in a Russian audio magazine) a few years back and contemplated to try (my local transformer makers agree to do them and rudely unbiased the concept). However, there were, and still are, many “little things” in RX direction that really cooled me down, and I lost interest to it.

BTW, be careful with the conclusions and with the joyful perspective that the author of this article passed to his readers. Mr. Likhnitsky is a quite famous falsification and in very many know to me instances he acted a cheap liar. He most of the time quite aggressively massages Reality in order to get out of Reality his neurotic thrill and as a result - his comments have very severe colorations of half-true. In addition (and there are very many other reasons why) Mr. Likhnitsky really can’t objectively or thoroughly to approach or research a subject. He is able to handle a subject only up to the point where he’s able to make a cheap impression to his very restricted (and surprisingly idiotic) surrounding... no further! He never goes (or able to go) deeper to the underlying foundation of the maters. Therefore, his ideas, including the RX corrector is very much the same: a good initial concept, superficially thought out, horribly tested and implemented, evaluated through the ass but eventually all of this wrapped into a very presentable and swallowable format… A gullible person who does not know what actually stay behind all of it and who do not know the fact might be severely mislead.

If you worry about the RX then think the concept to the end, design a really serious corrector, build it, properly evaluate it and then, you would answer to the most important question: why the RX corrector necessary should be better? Likhnitsky never was able to answer to this question. I personally do not see any advantages in the RX-ing. Quite opposite: I see a LOT of very complex impediments that might and WILL screw the result..

Rgs,
The Cat

Forget about the vibration! Those vibrations are representing jus one aspect of the problem. There are many others as important aspect, and to fight/name the only proposed vibration course is as necessary as to expose a lend worm to a psychological treatment with presumption that it might profuse a more fruitful fishing.

You have to understand that Likhnitsky loves to create an artificial army of windmills and then to “heroically” fight with them. The problem with all of his “imagination” that he crates the virtual army of windmills with a very restricted complexity and accuracy. This complexity of his is something that exactly matches the amount of the efforts that Likhnitsky is capable to allocate for the defeating of the “new noble enemy” and therefore I find that all boring, highly predicable and most of the time - worthless…

BTW, when you bult your air-nized 834PT then do the following: Use in the feedback regular mica or polystyrene (they both dirt cheap and both are very-very good) caps. Then, when you get the reference point what your corrector might do put just one air cap, listen it and then change another. You will learn a very interesting phenomenon: by changing the cap responsible for HF roll-off you will not affect HF … but it will fundamentally change bass. The same will happen with the cap responsible for LF slope – it will not affect LF but it will hugely affect HF. Your will have many more observations, I will not name them at this point (the thread is about the RX filtering) but when you finish the project I hope you share the observations with others…

Rgs,
Romy