Why do you need a speaker crossover - discuss

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

As it says in the title.

I am sure somebody will start saying I have an agenda or I am selling something so I will leave it as an open question without comment.

BTW I do not count a tweeter protection cap as a crossover, it is the rest I am talking about. So saying to protect the tweeter doesn't count as an answer.

[StanleyB]

I am sure somebody will start saying I have an agenda or I am selling something so I will leave it as an open question without comment.

Do you have to add negative vibes to just about anything you post? It's getting more than a bit boring now.

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

Do you have to add negative vibes to just about anything you post? It's getting more than a bit boring now.
Stan every single time I have joined in a thread or started a thread someone here has accused me of it, mostly the guy in goggles. So I am simply asking can we discuss something for once without it.

[aquapiranha]

Because drivers have a spectrum over which they perform well, without damage. This spectrum does not cover the entire scope of our hearing however, so we need to use two or more, each covering a portion of the range of sound, hence Woofer / Mid / Tweeter. The Crossover sends the appropriate band of the spectrum to whichever driver has been designed to handle that band, Thereby reducing the potential for damage and or distortion to /from any of the drivers by trying to get them to work outside their comfort zone. Of course adding a crossover adds it's own problems such as insertion loss and phase issues. Often people (including myself) prefer the sound of a single wide range driver despite their inherent reduction in output at the frequency extremes because the sound that is produced is not subject to the bashing it gets in a crossover. Of course there are active crossovers too and these go someway to reducing phase issues associated with passive crossovers but require the use of extra amplification.

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

Because drivers have a spectrum over which they perform well, without damage. This spectrum does not cover the entire scope of our hearing however, so we need to use two or more, each covering a portion of the range of sound, hence Woofer / Mid / Tweeter. The Crossover sends the appropriate band of the spectrum to whichever driver has been designed to handle that band, Thereby reducing the potential for damage and or distortion to /from any of the drivers by trying to get them to work outside their comfort zone. Of course adding a crossover adds it's own problems such as insertion loss and phase issues. Often people (including myself) prefer the sound of a single wide range driver despite their inherent reduction in output at the frequency extremes because the sound that is produced is not subject to the bashing it gets in a crossover. Of course there are active crossovers too and these go someway to reducing phase issues associated with passive crossovers but require the use of extra amplification.

So why can't you do the same thing by selecting appropriate or more suitable drivers, or mechanically altering the driver cone to tailor the response i.e. doping.

[aquapiranha]

Because I doubt that even with mechanical changes to the driver they would be able to cover the range required without causing other issues such as changing the sensitivity and therefore making a crossover required.. catch 22?

[StanleyB]

Stan every single time I have joined in a thread or started a thread someone here has accused me of it, mostly the guy in goggles.
So why don't you refrain from starting a thread? I hardly do after being accused by someone on AoS of ramming down the throat of the buying public the sales and marketing hype of manufacturers who are after selling more goods.
Sometimes ( most times) it is best to keep commercial sensitive information secret, and just give enough of an opinion in a quantity that most are satisfied with.

[aquapiranha]

I am guessing Richard has not come up with a magic doping material that enables the use of one driver to be used in place of maybe 2 or more Stan, so I doubt he is pushing some new form of technology. I could be wrong though but I am sure people have been trying to do just that for decades.

[flatpopely]

Because I doubt that even with mechanical changes to the driver they would be able to cover the range required without causing other issues such as changing the sensitivity and therefore making a crossover required.. catch 22?

I use Epos ES14s and the bass/mid has no crossover components in circuit but this is only possible because it is a bespoke driver designed for the specific application. It would be possible to choose a driver and then design a cabinet around it to acheive the same result, given the correct measurement equipment, but even the ES14 is compromised, despite having no crossover, in its lack of sensitvity. You don't get something for nothing.

[StanleyB]

When I was a repair engineer I experimented with a zobel network across each drive unit, instead of one zobel network at the amp output only. The difference and improvements were amazing. But whether I could have made money out of my project was very much in doubt.

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

I use Epos ES14s and the bass/mid has no crossover components in circuit but this is only possible because it is a bespoke driver designed for the specific application. It would be possible to choose a driver and then design a cabinet around it to acheive the same result, given the correct measurement equipment, but even the ES14 is compromised, despite having no crossover, in its lack of sensitvity. You don't get something for nothing.

Exactly, a classic example. For me a crossover is just lazy design, or starting the job arse about face. In large speaker companies it is often "this is the WAF cabinet we want" "these are the drivers you must use as they are at the price point we need" "now design a crossover to make it work" :scratch:

It is a pity Robin Marshall was only one of a very few who was willing to put in the effort to do it right.

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

So why don't you refrain from starting a thread? I hardly do after being accused by someone on AoS of ramming down the throat of the buying public the sales and marketing hype of manufacturers who are after selling more goods.
Sometimes ( most times) it is best to keep commercial sensitive information secret, and just give enough of an opinion in a quantity that most are satisfied with.
Because Stan I am here as an individual, I am not trying to sell anything. If someone wants to buy they know where to go and what to do, that is a different matter.

I like to discuss things, even though I quite often get completely illogical or plain daft replies I find it stimulates me, sets of lateral thought patterns. That is what this thread is for as I have been thinking speakers today. Just sitting building things all day bores me to death, I have to keep trying something new to keep me alive. And in between bouts of soldering or glueing I wheel my chair to my other admin bench and have slurp of tea (which is always there as I have a 1ltr cup :doh:), check my emails, and post or reply on forums, then back to soldering. By which time after some of the things that happen to me on forums it makes the soldering become a pleasure again.

I also have strange work hours. I work to 1am every day of the week unless on holiday, and I often dissapear out for the day during the week, and everyday if not raining I go for a walk (well more like a march) through the forest for an hour and a then couple of forms and some meditation under the trees (this ain't yer new age meditation, this is bloody hard work). Believe it or not forums are part of my sanity routine, which is why I started my own so I couldn't be booted off all of them at once :ner:

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

I am guessing Richard has not come up with a magic doping material that enables the use of one driver to be used in place of maybe 2 or more Stan, so I doubt he is pushing some new form of technology. I could be wrong though but I am sure people have been trying to do just that for decades.

I have a couple of very magical doping materials that I have discovered. They don't cut down driver quantity, they alter driver quality.

[StanleyB]

Because Stan I am here as an individual, I am not trying to sell anything. If someone wants to buy they know where to go and what to do, that is a different matter.
There are enough people on forums who don't believe that people like you and me have a life outside of trying to sell them something ;).
I once got a thread locked and edited on wigwam after I disclosed how to make a high performance lead out of some cheap and readily available bits and bobs from the likes of Maplin.
So even apparently simple and innocent contributions can be viewed with suspicion once it is clear that you are in the manufacturing or retail business.

[StanleyB]

I have a couple of very magical doping materials that I have discovered. They don't cut down driver quantity, they alter driver quality.
The mind bending properties of hemp are well known ;).

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

The mind bending properties of hemp are well known ;).
It makes good rope but not good drive units ;)

Anyway it has all been tried before, that one by Mana according to rumour.

[John]

We had one guy who built his own speakers by carefully matching drivers (SPS) I am not quite sure how he did it but I heard his h frame open baffles are they were bloody good but not the sexist speakers I ever seen

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

We had one guy who built his own speakers by carefully matching drivers (SPS) I am not quite sure how he did it but I heard his h frame open baffles are they were bloody good but not the sexist speakers I ever seen
Musically it can only be done by ear.

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

There are enough people on forums who don't believe that people like you and me have a life outside of trying to sell them something ;).
I once got a thread locked and edited on wigwam after I disclosed how to make a high performance lead out of some cheap and readily available bits and bobs from the likes of Maplin.
So even apparently simple and innocent contributions can be viewed with suspicion once it is clear that you are in the manufacturing or retail business.
Some do try to spam and take advantage, so we all get tarred from the same brush.

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

Is the argument won so easily, are there no defenders of complex crossovers and BBC style design.

[Macca]

IME - No crossover is best, a simple one (one capacitor and maybe one inductor)is second best - yes you may get a little cone break up but with a decent driver it is not really an issue and what you lose on the swings you more than make back on the roundabouts. Every speaker is a trade off somehow.

[aquapiranha]

I think you will find Richard that most would assume a crossover is not really wanted, but is needed. I personally have used an active crossover to good effect and would recommend that route to all who will listen, as I feel it is FAR better both in terms of sound and modus operandi than a conventional passive crossover. However, unless someone comes up with a sinle driver that covers the entire rangoe of human hearing, with equal sensitivity in all areas then I doubt you will be seeing the demise of the passive crossover anytime soon. as for BBC, I am not sure what relevance that has here unless you are saying that the crossovers used there are more complex / problematic?

[Stratmangler]

I agree with Martin.
Unfortunately the number of wide band drives that cut the mustard with high frequency playback are few and far between IME.

My speakers are FH3s, using the Mark Audio CHP-70 driver, and they were just a bit too cuddly sounding http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full-range/172605-frugel-horn-mk3.html
They now have higher frequency assistance http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full-range/192083-frugal-super-tweeter.html

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

I think you will find Richard that most would assume a crossover is not really wanted, but is needed. I personally have used an active crossover to good effect and would recommend that route to all who will listen, as I feel it is FAR better both in terms of sound and modus operandi than a conventional passive crossover. However, unless someone comes up with a sinle driver that covers the entire rangoe of human hearing, with equal sensitivity in all areas then I doubt you will be seeing the demise of the passive crossover anytime soon. as for BBC, I am not sure what relevance that has here unless you are saying that the crossovers used there are more complex / problematic?
IMO an active crossover is even worse that a passive one, not only do you get the phase problems associated with all filters, but you get the noise of an active circuit (transistor thermal noise) but also you get all the associated power supply problems. It is just more gumf sitting in the signal (music) path to mess it up.

I will put up a statement and see if anyone can knock it down - There is only one thing better than the best component you can buy, and that is no component at all.

[aquapiranha]

IMO an active crossover is even worse that a passive one, not only do you get the phase problems associated with all filters, but you get the noise of an active circuit (transistor thermal noise) but also you get all the associated power supply problems. It is just more gumf sitting in the signal (music) path to mess it up.

I will put up a statement and see if anyone can knock it down - There is only one thing better than the best component you can buy, and that is no component at all.

You might be right richard, but I felt that using the active crossover (a Rane AC22B) gave more 'life' to the music and certainly does not mask any detail etc. Passive crossovers are very lossy and also offer an unusual load to the amplifier in most cases, whereas with an active, the frequency sent to each amplifier is commensurate with its corresponding driver. You know all this already so I wont go on about it.

Of course there is no better component than none, that much is obvious, but unless you are willing to put up with deficiencies at the frequency extremes by using a single driver then you have no choice really. I have used both and can live with either so long as the music sounds great.

[Marco]

How do I use my TRULY WONDERFUL (never heard better speakers in my life) Tannoy Monitor Golds, without any crossovers? Discuss.... ;)

Marco.

P.S Richard, you have email!

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

as for BBC, I am not sure what relevance that has here unless you are saying that the crossovers used there are more complex / problematic?
Yes I am.

[aquapiranha]

TRULY WONDERFUL


Careful there, the Hyperbole Police have spies everywhere... :lol:

[aquapiranha]

Yes I am.

I thought so. did you post something else recently about BBC style speakers being a bit old hat and not up to the job? I don't think I have ever heard any 'BBC' style speakers if you are referring to the small stand mount type though I have heard Marco's old Spendor S100's, do they fall into that catergory?

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

How do I use my TRULY WONDERFUL (never heard better speakers in my life) Tannoy Monitor Golds, without any crossovers? Discuss.... ;)

Marco.

P.S Richard, you have email!

With difficulty, you have to tell me what the crossover is doing what part of the frequency range it is tailoring. You could then apply damping to the Tannoy cone to mechanically change that.

[tannoy man]

How do I use my TRULY WONDERFUL (never heard better speakers in my life) Tannoy Monitor Golds, without any crossovers? Discuss.... ;)

Marco.

P.S Richard, you have email!

Marco use a high pass filter on the HF Compression Driver and no filter on the
Bass/Mid it sounds great

[Marco]

Careful there, the Hyperbole Police have spies everywhere...


Hehehe.... Indeed! The point I'm making though is that it's all about achieving the best balance of compromises.

No audio equipment is perfect.

Therefore, regardless if crossovers make things worse (an undisputable fact), I'd lose far more than I'd gain by using intrinsically worse sounding speakers than the Tannoys, just to lose the crossovers in a totally different design!

Regarding, making further modifications... Thanks for the tips, guys, but I can't really be arsed. Why attempt to 'fix' what ain't broken?

The crossovers in my Tannoys are very simple, though, and of the highest quality, so I reckon that I have achieved the best balance of compromises, and they stun me every time I listen to how wonderfully they reproduce music - job done! :)

Marco.

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

I thought so. did you post something else recently about BBC style speakers being a bit old hat and not up to the job? I don't think I have ever heard any 'BBC' style speakers if you are referring to the small stand mount type though I have heard Marco's old Spendor S100's, do they fall into that catergory?
I don't know but I presume they don't. Companies like Harbeth and Spendor now a days only pay lip service to BBC design principles for marketing purposes IMO.

It is more a problem now with bigger companies and to do with cost savings, as a complex crossover is a lot cheaper than a good drive unit or solid cabinet.

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

Marco use a high pass filter on the HF Compression Driver and no filter on the
Bass/Mid it sounds great
There you go a man who knows. All the gumf was not needed in the first place :rolleyes:

[Tim]

Companies like Harbeth and Spendor now a days only pay lip service to BBC design principles for marketing purposes IMO.
I'm so glad you included that.

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

I'm so glad you included that.
I would have thought it was obvious as Marco says. I include it to deflect some of the ignorant shit thrown at me.

[lurcher]

There is only one thing better than the best component you can buy, and that is no component at all.

Assuming that the absense of that component does not cause more damage than the best component that could be used.

Deciding to improve your sound by not using any speaker cables will not lead to a better sound if the output of the amplifier has to be distant from the loudspeaker.

[nat8808]

IMO an active crossover is even worse that a passive one, not only do you get the phase problems associated with all filters, but you get the noise of an active circuit (transistor thermal noise) but also you get all the associated power supply problems. It is just more gumf sitting in the signal (music) path to mess it up.


I hope these phase problems and noise problems have been bourne out through listening and are not just objectivist talk !! :eyebrows:

If YES --> carry on to next post

NO --> are you sure these problems are real problems to the listener?

[nat8808]

Musically it can only be done by ear.

Can I express a small niggle of mine that often pops up on forums? Not aimed at you really Richard, a general point.

What if you're not listening to music and you want the speakers to portray a sound recording as realistically as possible, a sound recording of non-musical sounds?

I want speakers that do that and I assume that any musical event will also be portrayed in an equally realistic way without a human emotional brain interfering to make it more musical. and therefore imposing a 'human (western) cultural filter'.

Am I then forced to go for studio style speakers where no claims are made about musicality or is it all hifi talk and they're the same?

(out of interest, does any maufacturer claim to do this at all? Harbeth claim to use speech as a listening test but surely that's bandwidth limited realism?)

[Ali Tait]

How do I use my TRULY WONDERFUL (never heard better speakers in my life) Tannoy Monitor Golds, without any crossovers? Discuss.... ;)

Marco.

P.S Richard, you have email!

You could do the next best thing Marco- get a good SET amp to drive the tweeters and go active with a Behringer DCX2496. I'm pretty sure it would sound better than your passive set up.

[Marco]

Hi Ali,

You may be right, who knows? But I'm delighted with what I've got (couldn't ever imagine not using the Copper amp, as aside from how it sounds, it's a thing of beauty), so I ain't going there, dude...

Pretty much all the gear I've got now is a keeper for a VERY long time! There will be some further tweakage, here and there, but the core components are staying put.

Satisfactionville is a nice place to be!! :cool:

Marco.

[Ali Tait]

Aye, but you'd still be using the copper amp! What I'm saying is, use the copper amp to drive the 15 inchers, and a good SET to drive the.tweeters, using a Behringer DCX2496 active crossover in place of your passive one.

[SPS]

interesting thread, i'm an avid collector of all things hi fi, and old speaker books rate quite highly

the standard crossover is cheap, easy to couple speakers with, and can be easily tailored for a flatish sound, at the expense of a little quality

i dont see it being replaced in the near furure,

john, thanks for the nice comments about my old speakers
but there s no magic dust, i'm lucky enough to have bought/ collected lots of good quality drivers, so i can use combinations of drivers that manufactures could not use, for my one off creations.

there is no one 'right' way - single drivers or multi drivers.
there are ways of mechanically restricting/ boosting drivers across the audio band. most ways have neen used in the past by someone, thats exactly what most single driver speakers do.. they are mechanical 3 way speakers

i remember a knowlegable enthusiast saying to me speaker designers he knew, design using sharp cut crossovers.. but use 1st order themselves.

I was an avid single driver user once, but not now..

[Marco]

Aye, but you'd still be using the copper amp! What I'm saying is, use the copper amp to drive the 15 inchers, and a good SET to drive the.tweeters, using a Behringer DCX2496 active crossover in place of your passive one.


Ah, reet-o, I see where you're coming from.... Maybe one day, sometime, perhaps! :eyebrows:

Marco.

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

Ah, reet-o, I see where you're coming from.... Maybe one day, sometime, perhaps! :eyebrows:
Marco.
I will lay you a wager of a £100 you would find it worse. Now do it passively via just splitting the crossover would be interesting, but the Behringer is cheap cack.

[Ali Tait]

Sorry but you are completely wrong there Richard. I use one myself and it sounds superb, far better than the passive crossover it replaced.

[Tim]

:popcorn:

[BTH K10A]

There have been a number of reasonable full range drivers made over the years. All have their idiosyncrasies and none are perfect but a lot of people still like to use the, mainly due to efficiency reasons when using SET's. I have over the years tried a few and was never really comfortable with any of them. If my taste in music was purely solo acoustic stuff then maybe they would have been ok.

The best of them were some vintage Goodmans rear horn loaded cabinets two Axiom 80's in each cabinet. They had fairly deep bass with a reasonable top end but were not as enjoyable as the JBL 4333a's I had.

What Richard seems to be striving for is a two or three driver speaker that has naturally occurring roll offs between drivers, at the correct frequencies, with the correct slopes and equal sensitivity.

If this could be done then I think we would have at least seen some kind of paper on the theory if not an actual product. Unless..... Richard knows better

[anthonyTD]

hi all,
intersting thread, of course the ideal way to be able to do without any form of cross-over is to use a wide band single driver, however as has already been explained, such drivers are rare beasts, and even then, controling cone break up at certain frequencies is usualy always a problem.
i am not a supporter of adding anything to the cone that adds mass, however, i know there are many who have used such compounds with varying levels of success.
My own personal view on speaker design is, yes, drive units on the whole can be made to have a much wider linear frequency range [fact] however, it is more expensive to design and maintain the quality needed, so, most speaker manufacturers take the easy way out and just use mediocre drivers that can be tuned relitively easy with a bunch of passive components.
unfortunetly, even when you get to the high end, this principle practice is still widely used in certain designs.
If we go back to the early days when low [ish] powered valve amplifiers were the norm, loudspeaker drive unit design was much better in that the sensitivity and frequency extreemes were much better [all imho] I blame the 1970's for the demise of the best drive unit designs, as with the increasing availability of good solid state devices it seems it became far cheaper to make a high power solid state power amplifier to drive a mediocre loudspeaker, than to produce high quality drive units, hence the need to continue the evolution of the loudspeaker drive unit as better technology and materials became available was phased out in favour of the big brash solid state designs of the day.:(
Anthony,TD...

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

There have been a number of reasonable full range drivers made over the years. All have their idiosyncrasies and none are perfect but a lot of people still like to use the, mainly due to efficiency reasons when using SET's. I have over the years tried a few and was never really comfortable with any of them. If my taste in music was purely solo acoustic stuff then maybe they would have been ok.

The best of them were some vintage Goodmans rear horn loaded cabinets two Axiom 80's in each cabinet. They had fairly deep bass with a reasonable top end but were not as enjoyable as the JBL 4333a's I had.

What Richard seems to be striving for is a two or three driver speaker that has naturally occurring roll offs between drivers, at the correct frequencies, with the correct slopes and equal sensitivity.

If this could be done then I think we would have at least seen some kind of paper on the theory if not an actual product. Unless..... Richard knows better
There is no theory and no paper involved and I wouldn't waste my time trying to write one, there is only ears. Very very difficult with 3 way in fact I wouldn't even try it, but with two way it is very possible, and I have done it and so have Epos and some Royds got pretty close. Anyone is welcome to come around and listen. Just a single blocking capacitor on the tweeter, not a full range driver as bass mid, just doped and tailored with cabinet and positioning.

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

hi all,
intersting thread, of course the ideal way to be able to do without any form of cross-over is to use a wide band single driver, however as has already been explained, such drivers are rare beasts, and even then, controling cone break up at certain frequencies is usualy always a problem.
i am not a supporter of adding anything to the cone that adds mass, however, i know there are many who have used such compounds with varying levels of success.
My own personal view on speaker design is, yes, drive units on the whole can be made to have a much wider linear frequency range [fact] however, it is more expensive to design and maintain the quality needed, so, most speaker manufacturers take the easy way out and just use mediocre drivers that can be tuned relitively easy with a bunch of passive components.
unfortunetly, even when you get to the high end, this principle practice is still widely used in certain designs.
If we go back to the early days when low [ish] powered valve amplifiers were the norm, loudspeaker drive unit design was much better in that the sensitivity and frequency extreemes were much better [all imho] I blame the 1970's for the demise of the best drive unit designs, as with the increasing availability of good solid state devices it seems it became far cheaper to make a high power solid state power amplifier to drive a mediocre loudspeaker, than to produce high quality drive units, hence the need to continue the evolution of the loudspeaker drive unit as better technology and materials became available was phased out in favour of the big brash solid state designs of the day.:(
Anthony,TD...
What I do adds less than 5% mass to the cone, which is deliberately a light one anyway.

Apart from that I fully agree with the sentiments here, apart from don't judge all solid state amps on Naim's efforts, they skewed the industry and in some ways created the move to valves..

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

Sorry but you are completely wrong there Richard. I use one myself and it sounds superb, far better than the passive crossover it replaced.
"Sounds superb" is in the ear of the beholder, so I will have to accept your judgement at face value. I have built active crossover using better circuits and better component than Behringer would be capable of, going back to Tresham days for large PA rigs, and experimented domestically, and in my opinion just as with this latest fad for balanced line for home hi-fi systems it is a misplaced compromise. Just because something is needed and works in the pro market doesn't make it the best compromise / solution in the domestic market. Most of it is just marketing hype anyway.

[anthonyTD]

What I do adds less than 5% mass to the cone, which is deliberately a light one anyway.

Apart from that I fully agree with the sentiments here,
apart from don't judge all solid state amps on Naim's efforts, they skewed the industry and in some ways created the move to valves..
Yep, point taken,
of course there were some very good solid state designs right from the begining, [even some with output transformers] however, i was talking mainly mainstream, which is of course where the market is driven from.
I remember when my dad first started building solid state amps in the very early 1970's, i would go into his workshop and sit and listen for a while, however, compared to the valve equipment he had used since i was very little, [with Warfdale super 8 speakers, hence no crossovers needed] they all sounded terible to me.
Anthony,TD...

[anthonyTD]

"Sounds superb" is in the ear of the beholder, so I will have to accept your judgement at face value. I have built active crossover using better circuits and better component than Behringer would be capable of, going back to Tresham days for large PA rigs, and experimented domestically, and in my opinion
just as with this latest fad for balanced line for home hi-fi systems it is a misplaced compromise. Just because something is needed and works in the pro market doesn't make it the best compromise / solution in the domestic market. Most of it is just marketing hype anyway.
I agree,
balanced line is mainly used in electrically noisy environments, and where long lengths of cables could not be avoided, IMHO there is no need for use of this technology in a conventional HI FI set, unless either or both examples above are relevant, its just added complication.
Anthony,TD...

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

Yep, point taken,
of course there were some very good solid state designs right from the begining, [even some with output transformers] however, i was talking mainly mainstream, which is of course where the market is driven from.
I remember when my dad first started building solid state amps in the very early 1970's, i would go into his workshop and sit and listen for a while, however, compared to the valve equipment he had used since i was very little, [with Warfdale super 8 speakers, hence no crossovers needed] they all sounded terible to me.
Anthony,TD...
Early transistors and transistor circuits were pretty horrible, which was what seemed so daft when the likes of Quad converted, as a Quad 202 valve amp thoroughly pee-ed on a 303 transistor amp musically, couldn't he hear it, or did he just measure and not listen.

[Ali Tait]

"Sounds superb" is in the ear of the beholder, so I will have to accept your judgement at face value. I have built active crossover using better circuits and better component than Behringer would be capable of, going back to Tresham days for large PA rigs, and experimented domestically, and in my opinion just as with this latest fad for balanced line for home hi-fi systems it is a misplaced compromise. Just because something is needed and works in the pro market doesn't make it the best compromise / solution in the domestic market. Most of it is just marketing hype anyway.

I never said it was the best compromise,I just said it was very good IMO. Why a misplaced compromise? It's surely as valid for domestic use as it is for PA use.

[BTH K10A]

There is no theory and no paper involved and I wouldn't waste my time trying to write one, there is only ears. Very very difficult with 3 way in fact I wouldn't even try it, but with two way it is very possible, and I have done it and so have Epos and some Royds got pretty close. Anyone is welcome to come around and listen. Just a single blocking capacitor on the tweeter, not a full range driver as bass mid, just doped and tailored with cabinet and positioning.

Oh I see, nothing revolutionary then. :(

[anthonyTD]

Early transistors and transistor circuits were pretty horrible, which was what seemed so daft when the likes of Quad converted, as a Quad 202 valve amp thoroughly pee-ed on a 303 transistor amp musically,
couldn't he hear it, or did he just measure and not listen.

That was it, He could hear it, but it wasnt untill later on when i started building equipment that he finaly realised and admited to me and himself that he had spent a good number of years going round in circles! you see, it was the new trend, valves were out,Transistors were in, they were bound to be better, the sad thing was, at the time, my dad never trusted his own ears!
Anthony,TD...

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

I never said it was the best compromise,I just said it was very good IMO. Why a misplaced compromise? It's surely as valid for domestic use as it is for PA use.
If you had ever worked in a studio on a technical level or put together PA rigs you would know what I am talking about. To try and do a passive PA rig makes as much sense as trying to wash an elephant with a water pistol. The early WEM experiments that they used for the Stones free Hyde Park gig tried it (which incidently was organised mostly for trying out the rig) and proved it. But with some very innovative ideas, including the "poppy" speakers.

As Anthony says, it is just unnecessary faf, you may like it, and good for you, we are all individuals with individual choice. I worked on that original WEM rig and that was 40 years ago and worked in the pro industry as well as the domestic. This has led me to my current ethos, basically, keep it simple stupid! *anything* in the signal path, is in the signal path and in the way of the music - full stop. If you prefer it then the simpler thing before wasn't functioning to its potential, where as what you have now obviously is. *You cannot improve music* by adding complication, you can only add more dirt to the window.

There is nothing wrong domestically with bi or tri amping passively, nothing is added to the signal path, as long as you have the space for the extra amps. Have you looked at how many transistors and op-amps are in that Behringer - they are all in the signal path.

[Ali Tait]

Yes, but so are all the components in a passive crossover. I don't see it as "unnecessary faff" it's just another way of achieving the objective. In any case, the system I use it on will only be for AV use. For serious music listening I will be using my ER Audio electrostatics driven by direct-coupled GM70 amps (When they are built!)

[anthonyTD]

Yes, but so are all the components in a passive crossover. I don't see it as "unnecessary faff" it's just another way of achieving the objective. In any case, the system I use it on will only be for AV use. For serious music listening I will be using my ER Audio electrostatics driven by direct-coupled GM70 amps (When they are built!)
hi Ali,
how are the amps coming along ?
Anthony,TD...

[Ali Tait]

The amps are fine, I just need to give Nick the rest of the necessary to buy the chassis etc. All the iron is bought, which was the major expense- ironic really, given they are OTL amps!

Hopefully in the next couple of months...

[anthonyTD]

The amps are fine, I just need to give Nick the rest of the necessary to buy the chassis etc. All the iron is bought, which was the major expense- ironic really, given they are OTL amps!

Hopefully in the next couple of months...
Great!
look forward to seeing some picks of them, and to reading of your initial impressions when they are up and running.
Anthony,TD...

[flatpopely]

There is no theory and no paper involved and I wouldn't waste my time trying to write one, there is only ears. Very very difficult with 3 way in fact I wouldn't even try it, but with two way it is very possible, and I have done it and so have Epos and some Royds got pretty close. Anyone is welcome to come around and listen. Just a single blocking capacitor on the tweeter, not a full range driver as bass mid, just doped and tailored with cabinet and positioning.

Richard, with all due respect I suspect the ES14s were measured and it was not just Robins 'ears' used to produce a speaker with no crossover.

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

Yes, but so are all the components in a passive crossover.
Which brings us full circle back to the question that started the thread "Why do you need a crossover" and I will add be that passive or active. When with a bit of common sense and time you can do the same things mechanically.

[flatpopely]

When with a bit of common sense and time you can do the same things mechanically.

Which indeed you can given the ability to design bespoke drivers and/or cabinets and measure the same.

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

Richard, with all due respect I suspect the ES14s were measured and it was not just Robins 'ears' used to produce a speaker with no crossover.
What are you talking about, where did I say it was.

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

Which indeed you can given the ability to design bespoke drivers and/or cabinets and measure the same.
How do you know, have you done it. Per usual you are talking out of your arse to try and get a response from me. Well done you succeeded.

[flatpopely]

Where has the reference to 'ears' gone, I'm confused.......

Sorry its here:-

"There is no theory and no paper involved and I wouldn't waste my time trying to write one, there is only ears."

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

Where has the reference to 'ears' gone, I'm confused.......

Sorry its here:-

"There is no theory and no paper involved and I wouldn't waste my time trying to write one, there is only ears."
For F*** sake I am talking about ME!

[Marco]

Let's calm down, guys...

Andrew, I think you misinterpreted Richard's earlier post, when he was talking about himself, rather than the person who designed the Epos speakers :)

I don't think there was any malice in what Andrew wrote, Richard, just simply a misunderstanding.

Marco.

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

The amps are fine, I just need to give Nick the rest of the necessary to buy the chassis etc. All the iron is bought, which was the major expense- ironic really, given they are OTL amps!

Hopefully in the next couple of months...
OTL amps :eek: best of luck.

[Marco]

I'd like to hear those, Ali, when they're finished :cool:

Marco.

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

Let's calm down, guys...

Andrew, I think you misinterpreted Richard's earlier post, when he was talking about himself, rather than the person who designed the Epos speakers :)

I don't think there was any malice in what Andrew wrote, Richard, just simply a misunderstanding.

Marco.
A misunderstanding that gave him the chance to create conflict again. FFS how many time have I seen it across how many forums. It is like having a stalker.

[Marco]

Richard, I think that on this occasion you're reading Andrew wrongly, based on the ill-feeling between you, as a result of the confrontational relationship you've had for some time.

It was just a simple misunderstanding, born from the tendency both of you have to see things in each other that aren't there, due to the above.

Anyway, let's leave it there now please and return to the main thrust of the discussion - churz! :cool:

Marco.

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

Robin Marshall designed a speaker without crossover. I have designed and have been refining a speaker without crossover, I did mine by ear - as far as I know Robin Marshall could have used a steam driven lollypop to design his, I don't bloody know and I don't bloody care - end of!

I am very happy with mine and may be even happier if I refine them more. The prototype cabs have just been doubled in price by the fabricator (they are 20mm black acrylic) so apart from the couple of sets of cabs I have here I very much doubt they will go into production. So I am not chasing any sales. £800 for a pair of cabinets means they will end up too expensive, unless I just make some for the fun of it.

I was hoping this thread would come up with something that fired up the grey matter on to another lateral line I hadn't explored

[technobear]

Why do you need a speaker crossover?

I don't need one :scratch:

In so far as I am concerned, the only function of a crossover is to protect the tweeter in designs where a tweeter is necessary (as already noted).

I can think of one multi-way design that has no crossover whatsoever though. It comes from PHY-HP in France. The tweeter is a piezo unit with a small paper cone and requires no protection capacitor.

There are now quite a few driver manufacturers making full-range drive units that are also sensitive and so capable of satisfying in full the two most important criteria for any loudspeaker design, those being absolute coherence and realistic dynamics.

None of them have a flat frequency response but this is not important as it only matters to people who are obsessed with measuring everything. It is not required for realistic music reproduction (the music is already coloured in any case by the venue in which it is performed). The brains of normal people are not in the least bit bothered by a little frequency colouration and would never notice it unless it is pointed out to them.

Perhaps surprisingly, a flat frequency response is not required for movie reproduction either. The two most important criteria for that 'being there' feeling are as stated above - coherence and dynamics.

Of course there are limits to how far the frequency response can drift from the ideal. Nobody likes the Lowther quack of old (current Lowther drivers are very good) or a honking horn. Equally offensive are dome tweeters that are not correctly damped and make female vocals and electric guitars sound like nails down a blackboard.

Given the above, my choice of loudspeaker will come as no surprise. The Zu Druid uses a wide-band driver and a supertweeter with only a single capacitor and a high quality resistor to set the tweeter level. It is coherent. It is sensitive. It is dynamic. It starts and stops when it should both at high levels and at low levels. It sounds more real than any other speaker I have heard anywhere near its price and a long way above.

I used to think that I would never be able to afford the quality of sound that I have now. I take my hat off to Zu Audio. They didn't start out to create a speaker with high WAF or small size or a flat frequency response. They set out to create a speaker that would play music and make it sound real and do it at a real world price. They succeeded.

*dons flame suit*

[Ali Tait]

OTL amps :eek: best of luck.
Not a conventional OTL though, in this instance the anodes of the GM70's are directly coupled to the electrostatics. Nick built a breadboard prototype using 813's which sounded amazing, in many ways the best sound I've ever heard. The proper version will be much better.

[MartinT]

In so far as I am concerned, the only function of a crossover is to protect the tweeter in designs where a tweeter is necessary (as already noted).

Many crossovers are more than that: they exist to prevent the driver from reproducing frequency regions where their distortion and/or phase characteristics are undesirable. Effectively, the crossover keeps them in the region where they work predictably.

[nat8808]

Could it be Richard that you are tuning by ear a speaker with no cross-over that satisfies your own preferences and you are happy with the results..

.. but should you have had other preferences you would be finding it very difficult to come up with something satisfactory?

Are you saying that you think you can create ANY flavour of speaker by adjusting the mechanical properties of the drivers?

[nat8808]

Maybe you could try to describe the characteristics of the sound you've aimed for, prefer and we can try to come up with the opposite that still seems credible as a speaker/sound description and then discuss whether those properties can be achieved without a crossover.

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

Not a conventional OTL though, in this instance the anodes of the GM70's are directly coupled to the electrostatics. Nick built a breadboard prototype using 813's which sounded amazing, in many ways the best sound I've ever heard. The proper version will be much better.
So you have got a couple of thousand volts on your speaker cables :eek: Do you have any children or pets?

Actually always thought this was an interesting idea. Seemed daft to me to electrically to step down just for a set of cables and then step up again. But I would have built the amps in the speaker chassis because that is one hell of a voltage to be flying around the room on cables.

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

I don't need one :scratch:

In so far as I am concerned, the only function of a crossover is to protect the tweeter in designs where a tweeter is necessary (as already noted).

I can think of one multi-way design that has no crossover whatsoever though. It comes from PHY-HP in France. The tweeter is a piezo unit with a small paper cone and requires no protection capacitor.

There are now quite a few driver manufacturers making full-range drive units that are also sensitive and so capable of satisfying in full the two most important criteria for any loudspeaker design, those being absolute coherence and realistic dynamics.

None of them have a flat frequency response but this is not important as it only matters to people who are obsessed with measuring everything. It is not required for realistic music reproduction (the music is already coloured in any case by the venue in which it is performed). The brains of normal people are not in the least bit bothered by a little frequency colouration and would never notice it unless it is pointed out to them.

Perhaps surprisingly, a flat frequency response is not required for movie reproduction either. The two most important criteria for that 'being there' feeling are as stated above - coherence and dynamics.

Of course there are limits to how far the frequency response can drift from the ideal. Nobody likes the Lowther quack of old (current Lowther drivers are very good) or a honking horn. Equally offensive are dome tweeters that are not correctly damped and make female vocals and electric guitars sound like nails down a blackboard.

Given the above, my choice of loudspeaker will come as no surprise. The Zu Druid uses a wide-band driver and a supertweeter with only a single capacitor and a high quality resistor to set the tweeter level. It is coherent. It is sensitive. It is dynamic. It starts and stops when it should both at high levels and at low levels. It sounds more real than any other speaker I have heard anywhere near its price and a long way above.

I used to think that I would never be able to afford the quality of sound that I have now. I take my hat off to Zu Audio. They didn't start out to create a speaker with high WAF or small size or a flat frequency response. They set out to create a speaker that would play music and make it sound real and do it at a real world price. They succeeded.

*dons flame suit*
No flames from me, from what I know of them Zu is one of the companies trying to do it right.

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

Many crossovers are more than that: they exist to prevent the driver from reproducing frequency regions where their distortion and/or phase characteristics are undesirable. Effectively, the crossover keeps them in the region where they work predictably.
So why can't you do that mechanically.

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

Maybe you could try to describe the characteristics of the sound you've aimed for, prefer and we can try to come up with the opposite that still seems credible as a speaker/sound description and then discuss whether those properties can be achieved without a crossover.

Nope.

It is then only words. It is about music, so you have to experience it.

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

Could it be Richard that you are tuning by ear a speaker with no cross-over that satisfies your own preferences and you are happy with the results..

.. but should you have had other preferences you would be finding it very difficult to come up with something satisfactory?

Are you saying that you think you can create ANY flavour of speaker by adjusting the mechanical properties of the drivers?
You could say *exactly* the same thing about designing crossovers.

[Marco]

No flames from me, from what I know of them Zu is one of the companies trying to do it right.

Indeed. I've heard a few Zu speakers, and they produce 'my' kind of sound, by simply sounding wide-open and detailed (not 'hi-fi') and capturing the 'soul' of music.

Therefore, I think there's something in what you're saying regarding loudspeaker design. For me, in many areas of audio, the K.I.S.S principle pays significant dividends!

Marco.

[technobear]

Many crossovers are more than that: they exist to prevent the driver from reproducing frequency regions where their distortion and/or phase characteristics are undesirable. Effectively, the crossover keeps them in the region where they work predictably.

This is another way of saying that the crossover is a sticking plaster to try and hide the fact that inadequate drivers have been used.

Many driver manufacturers have now learned (or should that be re-learned) the mechanical techniques necessary to avoid the need for complex crossovers.

[Beobloke]

I can't help thinking there are some sweeping generalisations going on here. A loudspeaker system is a whole that is equalled (or hopefully exceeded!) by the sum of its parts and if a designer has carefully specified and tweaked the drive units appropriately, then a complex crossover is not needed - to add one would be self defeating. On the other hand, if the drive units have been designed to achieve specific goals in specific areas, this may mean they exhibit some sort of resulting behaviour elsewhere in the frequency or time domain (been there, done that!) that is less than welcome. This means they will clearly need some sort of careful filtering, and a minimalist crossover is never going to work.

As an example, two of the finest loudspeakers I heard at this year's Munich Show perfectly demonstrated the polar opposites. One was a four way design using off-the-shelf drivers that had been very heavily modified and fitted to an incredibly complex cabinet that was machined from solid blocks of wood. The result was that they used two components in the whole system - an inductor on the subwoofer and a capacitor on the tweeter; both middle drivers were run full range. They sounded superb.

The second pair were from a company where the designer is known for his use of very steep crossovers. These were another four way design with crossover slopes of over 50dB/octave. They also sounded superb.

The conclusion I therefore drew from this is that simple crossovers are better, except when they're not!

[hifi_dave]

I can't help thinking there are some sweeping generalisations going on here. A loudspeaker system is a whole that is equalled (or hopefully exceeded!) by the sum of its parts and if a designer has carefully specified and tweaked the drive units appropriately, then a complex crossover is not needed - to add one would be self defeating. On the other hand, if the drive units have been designed to achieve specific goals in specific areas, this may mean they exhibit some sort of resulting behaviour elsewhere in the frequency or time domain (been there, done that!) that is less than welcome. This means they will clearly need some sort of careful filtering, and a minimalist crossover is never going to work.

As an example, two of the finest loudspeakers I heard at this year's Munich Show perfectly demonstrated the polar opposites. One was a four way design using off-the-shelf drivers that had been very heavily modified and fitted to an incredibly complex cabinet that was machined from solid blocks of wood. The result was that they used two components in the whole system - an inductor on the subwoofer and a capacitor on the tweeter; both middle drivers were run full range. They sounded superb.

The second pair were from a company where the designer is known for his use of very steep crossovers. These were another four way design with crossover slopes of over 50dB/octave. They also sounded superb.

The conclusion I therefore drew from this is that simple crossovers are better, except when they're not!

Exactly.

I have heard good and awful speakers using both simple/none and complex crossovers. It all depends on the drivers and the way they are used.

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

This is another way of saying that the crossover is a sticking plaster to try and hide the fact that inadequate drivers have been used.

Many driver manufacturers have now learned (or should that be re-learned) the mechanical techniques necessary to avoid the need for complex crossovers.

Exactly, spot on.

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

I have heard good and awful speakers using both simple/none and complex crossovers. It all depends on the drivers and the way they are used.
I think the point is being lost here somewhere down the line. Do you accept that any component in the signal path will damage the music? If so by altering the selected driver mechanically to remove that component can only be a good thing - agreed? So you have heard good speakers with a crossover, and so have I, but to follow the argument the speaker would have been even better without those components in the signal path and if the job had been done mechanically.

[Marco]

I think that point is pretty much indisputable :)

But then, there are also other variables in the equation, in terms of the final design of any loudspeaker, and I'm not a fan of absolutes..... ;)

Marco.

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

I think that point is pretty much indisputable :)

But then, there are also other variables in the equation, in terms of the final design of any loudspeaker, and I'm not a fan of absolutes..... ;)

Marco.
Tell me what the variables are - there is only mechanical and electrical. A speaker in its simplest form is a mechanical beast, apart from the voice coil. All additional electronics does is get in the way of the music and the job it is trying to do, get the mechanics right and the sticking plaster is not required. Cures always have side effects, it is much better not to have the illness in the first place.

Mechanical is not just selecting driver design and user doping. It is damping (a mechanical filter) and cabinet design and material and driver positioning as well.

[anthonyTD]

Tell me what the variables are - there is only mechanical and electrical. A speaker in its simplest form is a mechanical beast, apart from the voice coil. All additional electronics does is get in the way of the music and the job it is trying to do, get the mechanics right and the sticking plaster is not required. Cures always have side effects, it is much better not to have the illness in the first place.


Mechanical is not just selecting driver design and user doping. It is damping (a mechanical filter) and cabinet design and material and driver positioning as well.

Agreed!
A...

[MartinT]

This is another way of saying that the crossover is a sticking plaster to try and hide the fact that inadequate drivers have been used.

I don't disagree, Chris. I'm not a mechanical engineer and don't know what compromises might have to be made to create a driver that doesn't require a filter to remove frequencies it can't handle, as opposed to one that is created 'wide open' but needs a filter to limit its bandwidth.

[Paul Hynes]

I use full range loudspeakers without crossovers and would not sacrifice the coherent presentation I am getting with these. During the 1970’s I used Eagle FR8 full-range drive units loaded with sewer pipes, tuned to the drive units, driven with Linsley Hood Class A amplifiers (the original simplest version in turn driven by Hood’s phono stage) and really enjoyed the musical presentation these items achieved even though the measured response could have been criticised. Everyone who heard this system was in agreement that musically it was exceptional compared to what was generally available at the time for similar levels of expenditure.

Historically I have had a lot of involvement with loudspeaker design, designers and manufacturing. I have tried most of the design options available for cabinet loading and crossovers, both passive and active through the 1980’s and early 1990’s. Whilst some of these designs were impressive for one reason or another, few approached the coherence provided by my 1970s system so I went back to full range, and I have been there ever since.

Much has changed since the 1970s but loudspeaker design is still governed by the laws of Physics. Disregarding the recording chain and replay electronics, which have their own issues that need care and attention in design, recreating a convincing illusion of a live musical event requires more than most commercial loudspeaker designs can achieve.

For instance, a classical concert performance or a rock concert will require movement of air that no single small drive unit would ever be able to realistically achieve. Think about it, you cannot reproduce the full energy of a tympani drum or a kick drum realistically with an 8 inch drive unit in a small cabinet. If you mess up the phase response through the audio band the fundamental notes and their harmonics will not be reproduced with the correct time relationship causing much musical confusion. Squash the dynamic scale and the performance fails to excite as much as a live event. I agree that a flat frequency response is not as important as these three key attributes. Anything that happens to the sound in the airspace of a live acoustic musical event will be perceived as a natural occurrence, and your brain will accept this as normal if it occurs in a sound system provided the effect is not exaggerated. Allowing a loudspeaker to generate effects that are not normally perceived at a live acoustic event can be disruptive to the illusion you wish to create. This goes for other equipment in the chain of reproduction too. Measurements are useful initially to get some idea of the overall electrical/mechanical performance but should never be solely relied upon. I have heard so many designs that measure well but sound wrong and some designs that do not measure to well by accepted standards that sound great. Your ears are your best asset when designing or choosing equipment.

Paul

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

I use full range loudspeakers without crossovers and would not sacrifice the coherent presentation I am getting with these. During the 1970’s I used Eagle FR8 full-range drive units loaded with sewer pipes, tuned to the drive units, driven with Linsley Hood Class A amplifiers (the original simplest version in turn driven by Hood’s phono stage) and really enjoyed the musical presentation these items achieved even though the measured response could have been criticised. Everyone who heard this system was in agreement that musically it was exceptional compared to what was generally available at the time for similar levels of expenditure.

Historically I have had a lot of involvement with loudspeaker design, designers and manufacturing. I have tried most of the design options available for cabinet loading and crossovers, both passive and active through the 1980’s and early 1990’s. Whilst some of these designs were impressive for one reason or another, few approached the coherence provided by my 1970s system so I went back to full range, and I have been there ever since.

Much has changed since the 1970s but loudspeaker design is still governed by the laws of Physics. Disregarding the recording chain and replay electronics, which have their own issues that need care and attention in design, recreating a convincing illusion of a live musical event requires more than most commercial loudspeaker designs can achieve.

For instance, a classical concert performance or a rock concert will require movement of air that no single small drive unit would ever be able to realistically achieve. Think about it, you cannot reproduce the full energy of a tympani drum or a kick drum realistically with an 8 inch drive unit in a small cabinet. If you mess up the phase response through the audio band the fundamental notes and their harmonics will not be reproduced with the correct time relationship causing much musical confusion. Squash the dynamic scale and the performance fails to excite as much as a live event. I agree that a flat frequency response is not as important as these three key attributes. Anything that happens to the sound in the airspace of a live acoustic musical event will be perceived as a natural occurrence, and your brain will accept this as normal if it occurs in a sound system provided the effect is not exaggerated. Allowing a loudspeaker to generate effects that are not normally perceived at a live acoustic event can be disruptive to the illusion you wish to great. This goes for other equipment in the chain of reproduction too. Measurements are useful initially to get some idea of the overall electrical/mechanical performance but should never be solely relied upon. I have heard so many designs that measure well but sound wrong and some designs that do not measure to well by accepted standards that sound great. Your ears are your best asset when designing or choosing equipment.

Paul

:youtheman::youtheman::youtheman:

Couldn't have put it better.

[anthonyTD]

I use full range loudspeakers without crossovers and would not sacrifice the coherent presentation I am getting with these. During the 1970’s I used Eagle FR8 full-range drive units loaded with sewer pipes, tuned to the drive units, driven with Linsley Hood Class A amplifiers (the original simplest version in turn driven by Hood’s phono stage) and really enjoyed the musical presentation these items achieved even though the measured response could have been criticised. Everyone who heard this system was in agreement that musically it was exceptional compared to what was generally available at the time for similar levels of expenditure.

Historically I have had a lot of involvement with loudspeaker design, designers and manufacturing. I have tried most of the design options available for cabinet loading and crossovers, both passive and active through the 1980’s and early 1990’s. Whilst some of these designs were impressive for one reason or another, few approached the coherence provided by my 1970s system so I went back to full range, and I have been there ever since.

Much has changed since the 1970s but loudspeaker design is still governed by the laws of Physics. Disregarding the recording chain and replay electronics, which have their own issues that need care and attention in design, recreating a convincing illusion of a live musical event requires more than most commercial loudspeaker designs can achieve.

For instance, a classical concert performance or a rock concert will require movement of air that no single small drive unit would ever be able to realistically achieve. Think about it, you cannot reproduce the full energy of a tympani drum or a kick drum realistically with an 8 inch drive unit in a small cabinet. If you mess up the phase response through the audio band the fundamental notes and their harmonics will not be reproduced with the correct time relationship causing much musical confusion. Squash the dynamic scale and the performance fails to excite as much as a live event. I agree that a flat frequency response is not as important as these three key attributes. Anything that happens to the sound in the airspace of a live acoustic musical event will be perceived as a natural occurrence, and your brain will accept this as normal if it occurs in a sound system provided the effect is not exaggerated. Allowing a loudspeaker to generate effects that are not normally perceived at a live acoustic event can be disruptive to the illusion you wish to great. This goes for other equipment in the chain of reproduction too. Measurements are useful initially to get some idea of the overall electrical/mechanical performance but should never be solely relied upon. I have heard so many designs that measure well but sound wrong and some designs that do not measure to well by accepted standards that sound great. Your ears are your best asset when designing or choosing equipment.

Paul
Intersting acount paul,
it would seem that there are quite a few of us here that have experienced what good full range drivers are capable of, as you say, its not all about measurments, its about getting a speaker and system to portray music in a way that excites and keeps one's interest.
nice to see you posting again.
Anthony,TD...

[AlexM]

It was stated earlier in the thread that a flat frequency response, or a reasonable approximation is not important as the brain 'corrects' issues here. I don't think that I can agree with that POV as, at least for me, one of the goals of HiFi reproduction is to reproduce a recording accurately and therefore get as close as possible to the recorded representation of the original performance and the tonality of the instruments.

Deviation from the recorded tonal balance as a result of dips or peaks in the frequency response is introducing colouration, and is altering the reproduction of the harmonics of the instrument. The problem I see with speakers that are inherently coloured is that they may may work better for some programme material than others, or be inconsistent in how the tonality of instruments is reproduced based on the pitch of the note played and that isn't what I personally am looking for, albeit that you can get used to it to an extent.

As has been said already, there are many ways to skin the cat and many of the problems of using passive cross-overs is a consequence of the design decisions that result in a particular choice of driver passbands and where this determines that crossover points need to be. I feel that the right choices of mechanical drive unit parameters in conjunction with cabinet and electrical design of the cross overs can ensure that the drivers work as effectively as possible, distortion is minimised, and dispersion across the frequency range is as consistent as possible with the aim of having as neutral a sound as possible.

I don't think that this is at odds with using high quality drivers with a minimum of 'nasties' that need crossover help to mask, and/or minimising the number of passive components in the crossover network.

Regards,
Alex

[Paul Hynes]

Richard, Anthony,

I think we have much in common. You guys, like myself, are not mainstream in the audio industry. We are constantly looking to move our goalposts towards better music. If I didn’t live on the outer rim of the universe I would be pleased to get the beer in.

Anthony,

It’s been one busy year for various reasons and I do not get much time lately to join in the forum although I do keep an eye on how things are going from time to time. I’m going to have to get on with some work now so will catch up with this thread later.

Regards
Paul

[AlexM]

Richard,

The driver itself is very much in the signal path, so there can't really be a valid catch-all statement that a doped or mechanically controlled driver doesn't degrade the signal, but an electronic component will, or even whether one is better than the other without context.

I would also dispute that only single driver speakers are capable of a coherent presentation - that isn't my experience, but I'm sure others may perceive this differently.

Regards,
Alex

[nat8808]

Nope.

It is then only words. It is about music, so you have to experience it.

So how else does one communicate, have a discussion, especially on an internet forum?

Even if I/we were to stand infront of your speakers and you say music is playing, if we don't use words how would either of us know that each of us could hear anything let alone what we think it sounds like?

The speakers you've designed that promted the thread could lead people to believe that you DO need cross-overs because they sound god-dam terrible!

As I said before, it could be that the reason you think the use of cross-overs is a bad idea is ONLY because you like a particular sound, one that happily can be produced with drivers that don't need them.

There could be many aspects of sound that other people appreciate for which cross-overs are absolutely necessary.

Also it could be that you're correct but you don't seem to be up for discussing much, only shooting down anything that goes against your current assertion.

I'm currently using some Jordan JX92s speakers that sound ok and have some Mordaunt Short 442s that also don't have crossovers (or at least very minimal cross-overs) and some Epos ES14s. I've speakers that have quite complex cross-overs and others that are complex actives. They are all different and I prefer some to others for different flavours of sound - I really haven't experienced either or any type to be better overall, only each speaker individually more/less appealing in different areas.

Of course, I have my preferences, enjoy some aspects of sound more than others and so listen to the speakers that give me that more often.

For all we know, you could be coming from a position of being deaf from 10KHz upwards or maybe your sense of hearing generates smell experiences - unless we use words to describe our experiences, subjective talk just can't exist!

[anthonyTD]

Richard, Anthony,

I think we have much in common. You guys, like myself, are not mainstream in the audio industry. We are constantly looking to move our goalposts towards better music. If I didn’t live on the outer rim of the universe I would be pleased to get the beer in.

Anthony,

It’s been one busy year for various reasons and I do not get much time lately to join in the forum although I do keep an eye on how things are going from time to time. I’m going to have to get on with some work now so will catch up with this thread later.

Regards
Paul

:)

[nat8808]

Do you accept that any component in the signal path will damage the music? If so by altering the selected driver mechanically to remove that component can only be a good thing - agreed?

Can the altering of the mechanics of the driver not damage the music also?

It may just be that the aspects this DOES damage are not aspects you appreciate..

This the point I've been trying to get at, long windedly!

It's also a genuine question for discussion, not just being contrarian.

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

Richard,

The driver itself is very much in the signal path, so there can't really be a valid catch-all statement that a doped or mechanically controlled driver doesn't degrade the signal, but an electronic component will, or even whether one is better than the other without context.

I would also dispute that only single driver speakers are capable of a coherent presentation - that isn't my experience, but I'm sure others may perceive this differently.

Regards,
Alex

:scratch:
1/ It is not a single driver I am talking about in my case it is a two way if you read the thread.
2/ At least one transducer is unavoidable, the same as you need speaker cables. To make a comment like made earlier in the thread that how can the system sound better without them (speaker cables) because it doesn't sound at all is puerile, which is why I didn't answer. Of course some thing are necessary, it is the unnecessary things (IMO) I am taking about. I say again the only thing better than the best component you can buy is no component at all. So Marco for example can go on improving the component quality on his crossover and spending a fortune on gold wired inductors etc without realising just taking the damn thing out of the circuit is better.

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

So how else does one communicate, have a discussion, especially on an internet forum?

Even if I/we were to stand infront of your speakers and you say music is playing, if we don't use words how would either of us know that each of us could hear anything let alone what we think it sounds like?

The speakers you've designed that promted the thread could lead people to believe that you DO need cross-overs because they sound god-dam terrible!

As I said before, it could be that the reason you think the use of cross-overs is a bad idea is ONLY because you like a particular sound, one that happily can be produced with drivers that don't need them.

There could be many aspects of sound that other people appreciate for which cross-overs are absolutely necessary.

Also it could be that you're correct but you don't seem to be up for discussing much, only shooting down anything that goes against your current assertion.

I'm currently using some Jordan JX92s speakers that sound ok and have some Mordaunt Short 442s that also don't have crossovers (or at least very minimal cross-overs) and some Epos ES14s. I've speakers that have quite complex cross-overs and others that are complex actives. They are all different and I prefer some to others for different flavours of sound - I really haven't experienced either or any type to be better overall, only each speaker individually more/less appealing in different areas.

Of course, I have my preferences, enjoy some aspects of sound more than others and so listen to the speakers that give me that more often.

For all we know, you could be coming from a position of being deaf from 10KHz upwards or maybe your sense of hearing generates smell experiences - unless we use words to describe our experiences, subjective talk just can't exist!

It just doesn't sink it does it :rolleyes: you could say *exactly* the same things if I was singing the praises of crossovers instead of the reverse. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, there is no other way. What you want is an argument and you are looking for fuel for it. Words are the fuel as you can twist them into what ever you like.

I have never once said you or anyone else would wet themselves over these speaker, they and you can please their bloody self. I am happy and I am singing that happiness and explaining why I think lack of crossover has been part of causing this. And as the thread title says exploring what other *constructive* people are adding to the data pile. The messers and dissers can just go and play with themselves. The usual parties queue up to disrupt, I have almost got use to it.

[lurcher]

To make a comment like made earlier in the thread that how can the system sound better without them (speaker cables) because it doesn't sound at all is puerile, which is why I didn't answer.

You rearly fundamentally dont understand logic do you.

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

Can the altering of the mechanics of the driver not damage the music also?

If you don't do it correctly and you are not listening to the process. But just the fact of altering the mechanics of a drive unit doesn't damage anything where as putting something extra in the signal path correctly or incorrectly does.

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

You rearly fundamentally dont understand logic do you.
I understand common sense, and also recognise someone trying to pick a fight, so I will go back to ignoring you.

[Beobloke]

During the 1970’s I used Eagle FR8 full-range drive units loaded with sewer pipes,

I'm surprised they didn't sound a bit sh*t.

Sorry, I couldn't resist......;)

[Ali Tait]

So you have got a couple of thousand volts on your speaker cables :eek: Do you have any children or pets?

Actually always thought this was an interesting idea. Seemed daft to me to electrically to step down just for a set of cables and then step up again. But I would have built the amps in the speaker chassis because that is one hell of a voltage to be flying around the room on cables.
Yes, though of course high-voltage cable that is easily capable of carrying the voltage safely will be used. The amps will be located next to the speakers so the cable runs are as short as possible. The amps will also have safety interlocks that will shut them down in the event of any problems, of if a speaker cable comes adrift.

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

Yes, though of course high-voltage cable that is easily capable of carrying the voltage safely will be used. The amps will be located next to the speakers so the cable runs are as short as possible. The amps will also have safety interlocks that will shut them down in the event of any problems, of if a speaker cable comes adrift.
Explain safety interlocks (in this context) to me.

[nat8808]

It just doesn't sink it does it :rolleyes: you could say *exactly* the same things if I was singing the praises of crossovers instead of the reverse. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, there is no other way. What you want is an argument and you are looking for fuel for it. Words are the fuel as you can twist them into what ever you like.

I have never once said you or anyone else would wet themselves over these speaker, they and you can please their bloody self. I am happy and I am singing that happiness and explaining why I think lack of crossover has been part of causing this. And as the thread title says exploring what other *constructive* people are adding to the data pile. The messers and dissers can just go and play with themselves. The usual parties queue up to disrupt, I have almost got use to it.

Oh for god's sake.. I precisely DONT want an arguement!

I am trying to put some ideas accross about the discussion itself, reflective ideas about the rights and wrongs of things.

I don't think there are absolute rights and wrongs as you are expressing, only different ways of doing things and getting different results - some will appeal to some and some will appeal to others.

Look at the title of YOUR thread "Why do you need a speaker cross-over - DISCUSS".

I think a more honest title thread, going purely on what has been written so far would have been "I believe cross-overs compensate for lazy driver design - line up with your objections and I'll try to shoot you down (and I'll praise all who agree with me)"

You're not up for discussion at all, only to shout about your own views with a trump card of "you have to experience it, not talk about it" as a last resort.

At least that is how you come across to me in this thread (I predict a response of "I'm not here to please you!").


The usual parties queue up to disrupt, I have almost got use to it.

If the same things keep happening, get the same responses from different people - bearing in mind I've never joined in in one of your 'discussions' before - then perhaps it is something you are doing that causes this response?

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

Oh for god's sake.. I precisely DONT want an arguement!

I am trying to put some ideas accross about the discussion itself, reflective ideas about the rights and wrongs of things.

I don't think there are absolute rights and wrongs as you are expressing, only different ways of doing things and getting different results - some will appeal to some and some will appeal to others.

Look at the title of YOUR thread "Why do you need a speaker cross-over - DISCUSS".

I think a more honest title thread, going purely on what has been written so far would have been "I believe cross-overs compensate for lazy driver design - line up with your objections and I'll try to shoot you down (and I'll praise all who agree with me)"

You're not up for discussion at all, only to shout about your own views with a trump card of "you have to experience it, not talk about it" as a last resort.

At least that is how you come across to me in this thread (I predict a response of "I'm not here to please you!").



If the same things keep happening, get the same responses from different people - bearing in mind I've never joined in in one of your 'discussions' before - then perhaps it is something you are doing that causes this response?
I keep answering, but you just keep repeating yourself, so what other conclusion can I make.

[nat8808]

I understand common sense, and also recognise someone trying to pick a fight, so I will go back to ignoring you.

Maybe not.. maybe you take someone with a differing point of view as someone picking a fight?

I'll stop the character assessments now.

Remember Richard, these are just words and you really have to EXPERIENCE the people behind them to truely understand whether people are picking fights or not as it's in the body language not the words..

Just assume that we're not and take it all as points of discussion.

[nat8808]

I keep answering, but you just keep repeating yourself, so what other conclusion can I make.

I was answering in order of your posts.. so no, you hadn't answered at that point but only complained about messers and desenters instead.

[nat8808]

If you don't do it correctly and you are not listening to the process. But just the fact of altering the mechanics of a drive unit doesn't damage anything where as putting something extra in the signal path correctly or incorrectly does.

You say that putting components in front of the drivers do damage the sound but altering the mechanics of the driver doesn't damage the sound.

Are you saying that when you alter the mechanics you never hear a difference in the music other than the change in bandwidth and frequency roll off? No aspect of the sound is impared when changing these mechanics?

And does this apply to any component, no matter of it's 'quality' or type or construction? And what kind of mechanical adjustments are you making that don't damage the sound? Doping, cone materials (if cones), magnets, surround types, coils, re-inforcement etc etc?

Won't changing the doping for example change things like the impulse characteristics of the cone and so change its response time and ability to respond to quick changes in direction etc?

That was a genuine question!

[lurcher]

Maybe not.. maybe you take someone with a differing point of view as someone picking a fight?

I'll stop the character assessments now.

Remember Richard, these are just words and you really have to EXPERIENCE the people behind them to truely understand whether people are picking fights or not as it's in the body language not the words..

Just assume that we're not and take it all as points of discussion.

In every case, I wasn't. I was just trying to make the point to him that a simplistic "less is more" set of choices is not always optimal. My example, was just demonstrating the effect of his pronouncement taken to its logical conclusion, and hence showing how while its presented as a absolute in realty it can only be applied with caution, so is meaningless as the absolute he was trying to suggest it was.

As a more complex but equally valid example of why the absense of something is not always the best solution take a simple two stage valve amplifier. If we decide that capacitors are evil, we remove them, and directly couple the two stages. But doing this means that the op points for the two valves then become compromised, and the net effect is to cause more problems than were solved by the removal of the component.

[Macca]

Anecdotal but I will go ahead anyway:)

I designed and built a pair of loudspeakers for a DJ pal of mine who was sick of blowing tweeters in budget bookshelf models trying to get a club sound in his large living room. To solve the tweeter issue I used Motorola piezo electric horns - no crossover needed as you cannot blow them.

The cabs were 3 quarter inch plywood, screwed and glued braced internally with pine batons. No wadding - I hate it more than anything it ruins speakers imho - the inside of the cab was lined with Deflex panels instead. Cab was about 60 litres, floorstanding with a port tuned 20-50 hz and an 8 inch kevlar bass/mid.

I was waiting for some custom inductors from Falcon Acoustics to turn up but we built the speakers anyway. The inductors took about another week and a half to arrive but when they did I went round to fit them retrospectively. My mate was not interested - 'they sound brilliant as they are I don't want to mess with them'

I had a demo with some high-octane dance music, they did indeed sound fine, it was not possible to hear the mid/bass breaking up even though on paper it should have been possible. Likewise there was no issue with level difference between the drivers even though spec wise there was (IIRC) a 6db difference in sensitivity. In a large room listening in the far field it simply did not matter in practice.

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

You say that putting components in front of the drivers do damage the sound but altering the mechanics of the driver doesn't damage the sound.

Are you saying that when you alter the mechanics you never hear a difference in the music other than the change in bandwidth and frequency roll off? No aspect of the sound is impared when changing these mechanics?

That was a genuine question!
Bloody hell I have answered these in just about every answer on the thread, you are just repeating the same things again.

I think there are two questions
1 Obviously yes.
2 Obviously no.

If that doesn't help then read the thread.

[nat8808]

Anecdotal but I will go ahead anyway:)

I designed and built a pair of loudspeakers for a DJ pal of mine who was sick of blowing tweeters in budget bookshelf models trying to get a club sound in his large living room. To solve the tweeter issue I used Motorola piezo electric horns - no crossover needed as you cannot blow them.

The cabs were 3 quarter inch plywood, screwed and glued braced internally with pine batons. No wadding - I hate it more than anything it ruins speakers imho - the inside of the cab was lined with Deflex panels instead. Cab was about 60 litres, floorstanding with a port tuned 20-50 hz and an 8 inch kevlar bass/mid.

I was waiting for some custom inductors from Falcon Acoustics to turn up but we built the speakers anyway. The inductors took about another week and a half to arrive but when they did I went round to fit them retrospectively. My mate was not interested - 'they sound brilliant as they are I don't want to mess with them'

I had a demo with some high-octane dance music, they did indeed sound fine, it was not possible to hear the mid/bass breaking up even though on paper it should have been possible. Likewise there was no issue with level difference between the drivers even though spec wise there was (IIRC) a 6db difference in sensitivity. In a large room listening in the far field it simply did not matter in practice.

Worst thing is going over to DIYaudio.com and wanting to discuss modifing or replacing a tweeter on some old speakers and first few posts are from people telling you that you'll ruin the whole design because the impedance curves won't match the crossover and it will all fall apart sonically unless the speaker is completely re-designed or left well alone (on a DIY forum!).

Then someone says they did it blindly with no knowledge and it all sounded fantastic, a brilliant upgrade.. Lots of things that people work out on paper that will or won't work but in reality don't seem to bare out.

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

In every case, I wasn't. I was just trying to make the point to him that a simplistic "less is more" set of choices is not always optimal. My example, was just demonstrating the effect of his pronouncement taken to its logical conclusion, and hence showing how while its presented as a absolute in realty it can only be applied with caution, so is meaningless as the absolute he was trying to suggest it was.

As a more complex but equally valid example of why the absense of something is not always the best solution take a simple two stage valve amplifier. If we decide that capacitors are evil, we remove them, and directly couple the two stages. But doing this means that the op points for the two valves then become compromised, and the net effect is to cause more problems than were solved by the removal of the component.
Jesus this is unbelievable - read the thread. Something that is necessary is necessary until someones finds it may not be necessary or does it differently to make it unnecessary *so it is then no longer necessary*. That cannot and does not extrapolate into everything being unnecessary :rolleyes:

And removing anything that becomes unnecessary is of benefit to the music.

[Macca]

Then someone says they did it blindly with no knowledge and it all sounded fantastic, a brilliant upgrade.. Lots of things that people work out on paper that will or won't work but in reality don't seem to bare out.

precisley my point - once you get hands on you find a lot of the theory goes out of the window (true with a lot of things not just loudspeakers). No-one would consider Motorola piezo-electrics as 'proper' tweeters but they are perfectly able to deliver fantastic treble providing that is what is fed to them.

I've heard cheap plastic dome tweeters making a cymbal sound that was so real it was breathtaking - I've heard expensive ribbon tweeters sound like metal bin lids being bashed with a stick. And so on...

[lurcher]

I will put up a statement and see if anyone can knock it down - There is only one thing better than the best component you can buy, and that is no component at all.

Statement was presented as an absolute. No mention of "necessary" or "unnecessary".

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

Statement was presented as an absolute. No mention of "necessary" or "unnecessary".
You are pedantic, and it is blindingly obvious that if you do away with the whole system you don't have any music at all.

[Alan]

Isn't it an advantage for the amplifier to drive the driver directly, rather than having it's interface with the driver semi-decoupled? That is one instance where the best coupling possible is surely needed.

This is one of the reasons why the Epos ES14s sound so good ('for little speakers'), the drivers are engineered with particular qualities that make a crossover redundant. The end result is much the same (as having a well sorted crossover) in terms of measuring response, but the relationship between the amplifier & driver is as close as it can be. There is nothing in between.

I heard a pair of Richard's prototype speakers at home for about six weeks, and they are very exciting, dynamic speakers. Quite a shock in fact in terms of scale, and the way quite subtle detail is thrust under ones nose. Compare this to - say my Dad's B&Ws (heavily engineered with complex crossovers & fancy drivers) and the differences are just gobsmacking.

I have always stuck with 'simple' speakers, that is to say where the differences the designer made are achieved mechanically. My Goodmans Magisters are laughably simple (laugh - until you hear them), my Royds are beautifully engineered but there are few components inside them. They are better than most big speakers (no - really).

The Royds have lots of mechanical engineering going on in the cabinets, the integral stands, the compound bass loading....the crossover has a minimal task to perform. Royd took this approach so seriously that all the drivers they made over the years are uniquely doped. I asked Phil at Phonography about spares, to be told there are none for my model. I cannot swap out drivers from other Royds, even similar sized models, even from the same range - in spite of their using what looks like the same 5 1/2" driver. The doping is unique to each model, weighted so the mass changes the basic driver's characteristics in order to match the crossover (such as it is), and the cabinet.

[Beobloke]

Worst thing is going over to DIYaudio.com and wanting to discuss modifing or replacing a tweeter on some old speakers and first few posts are from people telling you that you'll ruin the whole design because the impedance curves won't match the crossover and it will all fall apart sonically unless the speaker is completely re-designed or left well alone (on a DIY forum!).

Then someone says they did it blindly with no knowledge and it all sounded fantastic, a brilliant upgrade.. Lots of things that people work out on paper that will or won't work but in reality don't seem to bare out.

Replacing a tweeter like this will always make the speaker sound different.

Whether the difference is an improvement or not is purely down to the preferences of the listener.

[nat8808]

You say that putting components in front of the drivers do damage the sound but altering the mechanics of the driver doesn't damage the sound.

Are you saying that when you alter the mechanics you never hear a difference in the music other than the change in bandwidth and frequency roll off? No aspect of the sound is impared when changing these mechanics?

And does this apply to any component, no matter of it's 'quality' or type or construction? And what kind of mechanical adjustments are you making that don't damage the sound? Doping, cone materials (if cones), magnets, surround types, coils, re-inforcement etc etc?

Won't changing the doping for example change things like the impulse characteristics of the cone and so change its response time and ability to respond to quick changes in direction etc?

That was a genuine question!


Bloody hell I have answered these in just about every answer on the thread, you are just repeating the same things again.

I think there are two questions
1 Obviously yes.
2 Obviously no.

If that doesn't help then read the thread.

Well, no you haven't answered these in about every answer in the thread, not at all - more than half are angry rantings or self-defensive for a start, the rest are short and don't really go into any detail.

And no, there weren't just two questions that could be answered with a yes or no - I was trying to tease some of your experience/knowledge out of you and in to this thread.

As I've said already you don't seem to be up for entering into discussion about your own experiences or experiments at all.

You only appear to be up for a fight..


That is why I was asking more specific questions about it to see what you may have tried out and what you may have experienced. But all we get is ego b*ll*cks and attitude.

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

Well, no you haven't answered these in about every answer in the thread, not at all - more than half are angry rantings or self-defensive for a start, the rest are short and don't really go into any detail.

And no, there weren't just two questions that could be answered with a yes or no - I was trying to tease some of your experience/knowledge out of you and in to this thread.

As I've said already you don't seem to be up for entering into discussion about your own experiences or experiments at all.

You only appear to be up for a fight..


That is why I was asking more specific questions about it to see what you may have tried out and what you may have experienced. But all we get is ego b*ll*cks and attitude.
My point in the discussion has been explained clearly, you obviously have an agenda not to read it, and now you are being rude and showing your true colours and why you entered into the thread in the first place.

Did I address you or initiate contact with you - no, you initiated it. You asked the same question re-worded at least 3 times with me replying that it was either irrelevant (IMO) or I gave you the answer I wished to give, but no, like an old bone you chew chew and chew and you are still chewing it. If you have a point to make on the subject why not make it and stop all the crap.

[nat8808]

Replacing a tweeter like this will always make the speaker sound different.

Whether the difference is an improvement or not is purely down to the preferences of the listener.

True, but I think you should just try it out and see if it is an improvement or not and not get caught up in thought experiments that scare you into inaction.

Afterall, I can change the treble of the sound just by leaning a bit forward or back in my sitting position or repositioning the speakers - the room has more effect I would think than the tweeter per se.

[nat8808]

Did I address you or initiate contact with you - no, you initiated it.

WRONG! You invited everyone in the forum to discuss why you need a speaker crossover.

This isn't your forum so, no, it is not up to you to invite us to talk to you - we can all join in when we want on any thread. That's how it works.


You asked the same question re-worded at least 3 times with me replying that it was either irrelevant (IMO) or I gave you the answer I wished to give.

Exactly.

I wanted nothing more than to understand where you are coming from and to eventually come away from the thread a little more enlightend.

Instead, you refuse to enter into any converstion, either defensively dismissing genuine questions as people starting fights or you give short or vague answers and then complain that people aren't listening to you.

It just seems to show a contempt for anyone joining in on the thread who is actually wanting to discuss anything.

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

WRONG! You invited everyone in the forum to discuss why you need a speaker crossover.

This isn't your forum so, no, it is not up to you to invite us to talk to you - we can all join in when we want on any thread. That's how it works.



Exactly.

I wanted nothing more than to understand where you are coming from and to eventually come away from the thread a little more enlightend.

Instead, you refuse to enter into any converstion, either defensively dismissing genuine questions as people starting fights or you give short or vague answers and then complain that people aren't listening to you.

From the start in post 133 it has just been a troll.

It just seems to show a contempt for anyone joining in on the thread who is actually wanting to discuss anything.
More crap.

I chose to start the thread - you chose to interrupt it and you are still doing it.

I am still waiting for you to actually contribute to the thread with an expressed opinion instead of always directing posts at and against me and my opinions. If you really wanted to discuss something you wouldn't have posted the way you did. It was just an exercise in trolling for conflict.

From entering on post 38 it has just been a troll

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

Once again, anyone wishing to discuss the subject and not me :eyebrows:

[nat8808]

More crap.

Thanks! That's nice..



I chose to start the thread - you chose to interrupt it and you are still doing it.


I chose to interrupt it? I asked some questions about whether your assumptions about cross-overs in speakers could be attributed to your own taste and not a general truth. That interruption was part of the discussion.



I am still waiting for you to actually contribute to the thread with an expressed opinion instead of always directing posts at and against me and my opinions. If you really wanted to discuss something you wouldn't have posted the way you did. It was just an exercise in trolling for conflict.

I don't have an opinion as in my experience of speakers neither way of doing things has the edge over the other and of course one cannot proove that speakers with crossovers could sound even better because they would have to use different drivers.. nor vice versa - it would only be a thought experiment and I'd rather judge by listening rather than theorising.

To actively ask people to fall on one side or the other is surely inviting confilct is it not? I thought you wanted discussion not conflict?



From entering on post 133 it has just been a troll

You've confused me with this sentence - the post I'm quoting is post 133.. was your post a troll? Anyway I'm sure it's not important.

[nat8808]

Once again, anyone wishing to discuss the subject and not me :eyebrows:

Ok, I'll try (like I have been!).


So why can't you do the same thing by selecting appropriate or more suitable drivers, or mechanically altering the driver cone to tailor the response i.e. doping.

Because mechanically altering the driver may change the sound it produces to the same extent (but in a different way) as would adding components to a cross-over.

Will it not just depend on what you want to achieve?

There are many super-duper expensive, highly researched drivers out there. The companies that make them are chasing some aspect of driver performance and their answer is still a driver that requires a cross-over.

If a better driver will always be one that uses mechanical bandwith limiting then wouldn't these driver manufacturers have also come to that conclusion?

I would have thought from this that some aspects of driver sonics cannot be easily achieved by the compromises that come with mechanical bandwith limiting.

Everything in physics is a compromise afterall..

[pure sound]

In answer to the OP; for high quality, full range reproduction you need a 3 way system (at least). Whether driven actively or passively you will therefore need a crossover.

For a non full range system, then you can get away with a single driver. My Hacker Sovereign II radio makes a very nice & enjoyable sound with a single AlNiCo powered Goodmans Elliptical driver. I've also heard & owned engaging back loaded horns with Lowther & other drivers. But a complete solution? I don't think so. I don't really like asking any driver to cover more than 3-4 octaves.

There is scope to address some driver resonance by mechanical means. It isn't a free lunch though. For example I'd suggest that a speaker like the ES14 suffers as much by the nature of its cone as it benefits from the absence of a crossover feeding it.

All imho. YMMV :)

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

Ok, I'll try (like I have been!).



Because mechanically altering the driver may change the sound it produces to the same extent (but in a different way) as would adding components to a cross-over.

Will it not just depend on what you want to achieve?

There are many super-duper expensive, highly researched drivers out there. The companies that make them are chasing some aspect of driver performance and their answer is still a driver that requires a cross-over.

If a better driver will always be one that uses mechanical bandwith limiting then wouldn't these driver manufacturers have also come to that conclusion?

I would have thought from this that some aspects of driver sonics cannot be easily achieved by the compromises that come with mechanical bandwith limiting.

Everything in physics is a compromise afterall..
Everything asked has been answered already in the thread. Once again just read it.

And with that you can talk to yourself.

Anyone else, *who has read the thread* and doesn't want to continually repeat, like to discuss anything.

[Marco]

Nat and Richard, for goodness sake, give it a bloody rest!! :rolleyes:

Do neither of you possess the skill to bite your lip and back off and simply agree to disagree, in a debate, when neither side is of the same way of thinking, rather than go round and round and round and round, in a never ending pointless and circular argument??

Now, either learn this skill very quickly, or I'll simply lock this thread and BOTH of you will be out for a week!!

Richard, you'll have to learn to have more tolerance and patience and stop insulting people, calling them trolls and telling them they're talking crap, when they're simply disagreeing with you, or perhaps not understanding the point you're making properly.

Now, I don't want any back-chat on this either, so simply accept what I'm telling you and act on it, or any back-chat will simply be deleted and the thread locked.

I trust that I've made myself CRYSTAL clear!

Marco.

[nat8808]

Nat and Richard, for goodness sake, give it a bloody rest!! :rolleyes:

Do neither of you possess the skill to bite your lip and back off and simply agree to disagree, in a debate, when neither side is ever going to agree, rather than go round and round and round and round, in a never ending pointless and circular argument??

Now, either learn this skill very quickly, or I'll simply lock this thread and BOTH of you will be out for a week!!

Richard, you'll have to learn to have more tolerance and patience and stop insulting people, calling them trolls and telling them they're talking crap, when they're simply disagreeing with you, or perhaps not understanding the point you're making properly.

Now, I don't want any back-chat on this either, so simply accept what I'm telling you and act on it, or any back-chat will simply be deleted and the thread locked.

I trust that I've made myself CRYSTAL clear!

Marco.

Sorry Marco.. I just find it all very very frustrating!

I don't have anything to disagree about, at all.. I have no opinion either way, I promise!

I'm trying to learn if or why mechanical alterations don't change or compromise the sound too. I'd welcome anyone else to answer too to enlighten me.


Am I going crazy ... what's going on? :confused:

I think I'll have to go and read some discussions on DIYaudio instead now my curiosity has been aroused.

[Marco]

Sorry Marco.. I just find it all very very frustrating!


So leave it there then, Nat - and that applies to you too, Richard. Or just ignore each other, as I will not have this site littered with tedious and banal circular arguments!

Marco.

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

In answer to the OP; for high quality, full range reproduction you need a 3 way system (at least). Whether driven actively or passively you will therefore need a crossover.

For a non full range system, then you can get away with a single driver. My Hacker Sovereign II radio makes a very nice & enjoyable sound with a single AlNiCo powered Goodmans Elliptical driver. I've also heard & owned engaging back loaded horns with Lowther & other drivers. But a complete solution? I don't think so. I don't really like asking any driver to cover more than 3-4 octaves.

There is scope to address some driver resonance by mechanical means. It isn't a free lunch though. For example I'd suggest that a speaker like the ES14 suffers as much by the nature of its cone as it benefits from the absence of a crossover feeding it.

All imho. YMMV :)
There is scope for addressing a lot of it, it depends how you do it. As I have said before in the thread I am not talking about single driver speakers, they don't have a crossover by nature. I am in this case talking about two way, I suppose it could conceivably (but no by me) be applied to three way. Cone doping is only part of it. Driver position has a lot to do with it as well and how the driver interacts with the acoustic.

You have far more experience of horns than I have, and how do you dope a horn (the mind boggles). So I see no other course than bi-amp or active or crossover. Re the ES14 I know little apart from what I have been told having never used them.

None of this is absolute, I am simply saying that there are ways of removing the majority of complex crossover elements by mechanical means in selection and design of drive unit and with after market doping of those drivers and also with cabinet design and speaker drive unit alignment.

I will give you an analogy *IF* it was possible to remove and no longer need your output transformer with your current circuit (i.e. not using the current OTL circuit which I think we agree is a bit dodgy) would you not do it. For me this is the same, if you can get the bloody thing out of the way of the music then do it.

[hifi_dave]

I think the point is being lost here somewhere down the line. Do you accept that any component in the signal path will damage the music? If so by altering the selected driver mechanically to remove that component can only be a good thing - agreed? So you have heard good speakers with a crossover, and so have I, but to follow the argument the speaker would have been even better without those components in the signal path and if the job had been done mechanically.

The only way to have no component in the signal path is to listen to live music. Hi-Fi equipment is full of components.

The best speakers I have heard have had crossovers and I've also heard some horrors with. The nastiest speakers I have heard were single drivers.

Surely you can't create two way speakers where the drivers have different efficiencies without a component or two ? It can't all be done mechanically, can it ?

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

The only way to have no component in the signal path is to listen to live music. Hi-Fi equipment is full of components.

The best speakers I have heard have had crossovers and I've also heard some horrors with. The nastiest speakers I have heard were single drivers.

Surely you can't create two way speakers where the drivers have different efficiencies without a component or two ? It can't all be done mechanically, can it ?
Dave please read the thread, the first post explains it.

Driver selection addresses the sensitivity issue, and a simple blocking cap protects the tweeter, that is not a crossover, it is protection. For me the definition of a crossover is the desire to tailor the response of the drivers electrically via passive components configured as filters. I am saying that tailoring *can* be done mechanically and to my ears having compared a version with crossover with a version doped, it has made one hell of a difference.

[pure sound]

You can look at it the other way round. Someone might feel that a carefully implemented crossover or a well designed output transformer (for example) were tools that might be used to take advantage of the particular attributes of a drive unit or a particular output device like a Direct Heated Triode and without them the benefits of those items might not be realised.

With regard to horns, you wouldn't dope the horn. You'd hope that it was fairly inert though. However it will still have a driver behind it and that might benefit from mechanical treatment in just the same way as it might in a conventional direct radiator. Indeed the profile of the horn chosen might be used to extend or limit the bandwidth or sensitivity of a particular driver by strictly mechanical means!

With drivers dozens of different cone materials and profiles have been tried. Trying to control cone behaviour & break-up invariably seems to involve adding mass in one way or another. ie heavier, stiffer materials, ribs, doping etc. These treatments certainly will alter the sound just as applying correction via electrical means will. I still keep going back to paper cones which, when they do misbehave, do so in what seems a predictable & natural way. Adding mass will compromise the fineness of their resolving power though.

I suppose the reason I like multi-way horns is that when used with drivers having lightweight diaphragms & powerful magnets, they can produce adequate SPLs with the minimum of cone movement so a reduced chance of distortion through diaphragm deformation or through the voice coil having to move in the less linear parts of the magnet gap.

With regard to the directly driven electrostatics, its an intriguing idea & I'd like to hear them if only to learn whether it addresses my reservations about electrostatic loudspeakers. Having seen some of Nick's other work (well pictures of it) I'm sure he's more than capable of implementing it safely. I'm not sure it'd ever be a commercial product but then people do make plasma tweeters so who knows?

EDIT. I did once hear some Beveridge System 2's which had 200W valve amps built into the bases and which may have been directly coupled. They were by far the most impressive electrostatic speakers I've heard, not without flaws but head & shoulders clear of the usual Quads & Martin Logans.

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

You can look at it the other way round. Someone might feel that a carefully implemented crossover or a well designed output transformer (for example) were tools that might be used to take advantage of the particular attributes of a drive unit or a particular output device like a Direct Heated Triode and without them the benefits of those items might not be realised.

Then they are necessary, that is not the point of this thread. They will become unnecessary when an individual finds a way to do without them. In that case would you hang on to them just for the sake of it.

The rest of your post I agree with.

[pure sound]

By the way Richard, I completely agree with your opinions on the old BBC style monitors. Horrible, slow, sounding things with nasty plastic cones & hugely complicated crossovers. Quite capable of squeezing the life from any piece of music!

I think what AR, Allison & Snell did on the East Coast of the USA was far more interesting.

[Macca]

What about a loudspeaker with a full range driver covering the presence band, a self protecting tweeter and a seperate bass enclosure with a dedicted bass driver and built in amplifier that only delivers power through the 10 hz to say 80 hz range? - that gives you a wideband 3-way speaker with no crossover components.

We have also not addressed the crossover point - sticking the crosover at 2.5khz or 3khz slap in the middle of the performance range is where the crossover will have the most deletorious effect.

[Ali Tait]

Explain safety interlocks (in this context) to me.

You'd have to ask Nick for the details, but as I understand it, if there is a problem within the amp, or one of the speaker lead connections is broken, the HT will be switched off.

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

By the way Richard, I completely agree with your opinions on the old BBC style monitors. Horrible, slow, sounding things with nasty plastic cones & hugely complicated crossovers. Quite capable of squeezing the life from any piece of music!

I think what AR, Allison & Snell did on the East Coast of the USA was far more interesting.
Thank goodness for that I don't feel so alone :)

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

What about a loudspeaker with a full range driver covering the presence band, a self protecting tweeter and a seperate bass enclosure with a dedicted bass driver and built in amplifier that only delivers power through the 10 hz to say 80 hz range? - that gives you a wideband 3-way speaker with no crossover components.

We have also not addressed the crossover point - sticking the crosover at 2.5khz or 3khz slap in the middle of the performance range is where the crossover will have the most deletorious effect.
Lateral and interesting thoughts at last. :)

[hifi_dave]

Dave please read the thread, the first post explains it.

Driver selection addresses the sensitivity issue, and a simple blocking cap protects the tweeter, that is not a crossover, it is protection. For me the definition of a crossover is the desire to tailor the response of the drivers electrically via passive components configured as filters. I am saying that tailoring *can* be done mechanically and to my ears having compared a version with crossover with a version doped, it has made one hell of a difference.

I have read the first post and all those that followed. Thank you.

'Driver selection' with a two or more way speaker, limits your choice to drivers having similar sensitivity. Anything else and you will need a crossover. Surely ?

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

I have read the first post and all those that followed. Thank you.

'Driver selection' with a two or more way speaker, limits your choice to drivers having similar sensitivity. Anything else and you will need a crossover. Surely ?
Nope, and even if they don't match it is a simple series resistor with the tweeter. So a blocking protection cap and a matching resistor is still not a crossover.

[technobear]

'Driver selection' with a two or more way speaker, limits your choice to drivers having similar sensitivity. Anything else and you will need a crossover. Surely ?

Well, no actually. You could use several of the less sensitive unit. You could add a high quality series resistor to the more sensitive unit.

[Macca]

Nope, and even if they don't match it is a simple series resistor with the tweeter. So a blocking protection cap and a matching resistor is still not a crossover.

So when does a crossover become a crossover then :scratch:

[MartinT]

So when does a crossover become a crossover then :scratch:

When you are splitting frequencies.

[technobear]

So when does a crossover become a crossover then :scratch:

When it tailors the frequency responses of the drive units so as to blend them into a flat(ish) overall response.

It could be argued that even the tweeter capacitor is in fact doing this and does represent a crossover. It certainly distorts phase relationships and therefore still has to be used with due care and attention to its effect.

[Macca]

When it tailors the frequency responses of the drive units so as to blend them into a flat(ish) overall response.

It could be argued that even the tweeter capacitor is in fact doing this and does represent a crossover. It certainly distorts phase relationships and therefore still has to be used with due care and attention to its effect.

That would be my definiton too, but if Richard considers a cap and a resistor on the tweeter not to be a crossover then his definiton is different, is it not?

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

So when does a crossover become a crossover then :scratch:
Ah the $64k question. I can only give my opinion. A crossover is the seperation of two drivers, protection and sensitivty matching is not, it is just (normally) on the tweeter. So if there are no components associated with the other driver(s) it is not a crossover.

Even if it is just a coil (inductor) on the bass / mid then it becomes a simple crossover (as use by Royd for example) more elements to create steeper filter slopes and elements to tailor the response in band turns it complicated and complex and problematic.

[Macca]

okay so if we now understand what we are all meaning with 'crossover' we can proceed:)

Further to my wideband 3 way xoverless system - This could be lashed up with a decent 6.5 inch full ranger on an open baffle, baffle size to determine the roll off point of the full range driver down to where the bass drivers kick in - bass drivers could be lashed up with an old REL sub on each channel. Add a parasitic super-tweeter on each side and Bob's your mother's brother.:)

I'm actually quite tempted to have a go at that...

[nat8808]

You can look at it the other way round. Someone might feel that a carefully implemented crossover or a well designed output transformer (for example) were tools that might be used to take advantage of the particular attributes of a drive unit or a particular output device like a Direct Heated Triode and without them the benefits of those items might not be realised.

With regard to horns, you wouldn't dope the horn. You'd hope that it was fairly inert though. However it will still have a driver behind it and that might benefit from mechanical treatment in just the same way as it might in a conventional direct radiator. Indeed the profile of the horn chosen might be used to extend or limit the bandwidth or sensitivity of a particular driver by strictly mechanical means!

With drivers dozens of different cone materials and profiles have been tried. Trying to control cone behaviour & break-up invariably seems to involve adding mass in one way or another. ie heavier, stiffer materials, ribs, doping etc. These treatments certainly will alter the sound just as applying correction via electrical means will. I still keep going back to paper cones which, when they do misbehave, do so in what seems a predictable & natural way. Adding mass will compromise the fineness of their resolving power though.

I suppose the reason I like multi-way horns is that when used with drivers having lightweight diaphragms & powerful magnets, they can produce adequate SPLs with the minimum of cone movement so a reduced chance of distortion through diaphragm deformation or through the voice coil having to move in the less linear parts of the magnet gap.

With regard to the directly driven electrostatics, its an intriguing idea & I'd like to hear them if only to learn whether it addresses my reservations about electrostatic loudspeakers. Having seen some of Nick's other work (well pictures of it) I'm sure he's more than capable of implementing it safely. I'm not sure it'd ever be a commercial product but then people do make plasma tweeters so who knows?

EDIT. I did once hear some Beveridge System 2's which had 200W valve amps built into the bases and which may have been directly coupled. They were by far the most impressive electrostatic speakers I've heard, not without flaws but head & shoulders clear of the usual Quads & Martin Logans.


Then they are necessary, that is not the point of this thread. They will become unnecessary when an individual finds a way to do without them. In that case would you hang on to them just for the sake of it.

The rest of your post I agree with.

:thumbsup:

That was my question earlier.

[nat8808]

Ah the $64k question. I can only give my opinion. A crossover is the seperation of two drivers, protection and sensitivty matching is not, it is just (normally) on the tweeter. So if there are no components associated with the other driver(s) it is not a crossover.

Even if it is just a coil (inductor) on the bass / mid then it becomes a simple crossover (as use by Royd for example) more elements to create steeper filter slopes and elements to tailor the response in band turns it complicated and complex and problematic.

Oddly enough, the designer of my Jordan JX92 drivered speakers added an inductor (can't remember his reason) after extensive listening tests - might see what happens when I remove it from the equation.

[Paul Hynes]

You could argue that my open baffle line source arrays use mechanical solutions for tricky issues. I use Visaton B200 drivers and their individual response curve is anything but flat through the audio band, although I suspect these curves were produced from drive units that were fresh off the production line and not run in. After a month or so of run in the ragged top end smoothes out considerably and the drive unit sounds more coherent through the audio band. The bass end of an individual drive unit is lightweight due to the falling response, but happily, when mounting eight drive units in a vertical array, the parallel operation of the drive units gives a large boost in efficiency in the lower mid and bass end, which reinforces the bass very nicely in a way that evens out the bass/mid response to the point where I do not feel the need for subwoofers. The bass goes very deep when there is deep bass in the program and there is no cabinet honk or restriction as the arrays are open baffle. A well recorded kick drum sounds like a kick drum and I should know what this sounds like as I usually stood near to the drummer in the group I used to play in as a youngster.

Line arrays have benefits regarding reduced room interaction due to the way they propagate energy into the room. This is another mechanical solution to reduce an age-old problem of room interaction.

I have to admit that the top end rolls off a little earlier than many would require, however this can be a blessing with some program especially from digital sources, and the treble is nicely coherent.

The near field amplitude response of the line array falls off at only 3 dB for every doubling of distance whereas a point source propagating a spherical wave front falls off at 6 dB per doubling of distance. This adds further to the overall efficiency in a beneficial way. The very high efficiency of the lines means I only need a few watts to achieve concert levels, which is a nice side effect of the parallel drive units and the effects of the way the wave front is propagated into the room, which is once again a result of a mechanical solution.

Using eight drivers per channel means the lines can move enough air for concert levels without extreme cone excursions so the distortion levels of the drive units are very low.

So effectively I have moved away from complexity by implementing mechanical solutions in the loudspeaker design to minimise components in the signal path. There are no crossover components in the arrays. This has benefited the electronics too and my power amp has one mosfet and one resistor in the direct signal path and my line preamp is an LDR L-pad with one LDR directly in series with the signal. There is just no need for any voltage gain in these sections.

This works for me and I have not felt the need to work on the speakers or amplification for over four years. Prior to that I was always fiddling around spending vast amounts of R&D time looking for improvements.

Out of interest the system is great for home cinema duty too and some of the sound effects in the blockbuster films can be awesome.

Paul

[John]

A very interesting approach Paul. I am wondering if possible you can show some pictures perhaps on another thread I for one would find it very interesting

[Macca]

Yes a picture would be good if possible, please Paul?

[technobear]

...happily, when mounting eight drive units in a vertical array, the parallel operation of the drive units gives a large boost in efficiency in the lower mid and bass end...

I've never heard this before. Does this really boost the low end of an OB array relative to the midband? I'm intrigued.

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

Open baffle is the ultimate solution if you are completely nerdy, have got a separate play room, don't have a wife, etc. I can't cater for that nor can anyone else even in a mildly commercial situation. Even horns are limited choice due to these factors.

Now I know I have railed against WAF speakers but there has to be compromise of sorts aesthetically. I am avoiding showing pics as I know I will be accused of something if I do.

[Ali Tait]

You could argue that my open baffle line source arrays use mechanical solutions for tricky issues. I use Visaton B200 drivers and their individual response curve is anything but flat through the audio band, although I suspect these curves were produced from drive units that were fresh off the production line and not run in. After a month or so of run in the ragged top end smoothes out considerably and the drive unit sounds more coherent through the audio band. The bass end of an individual drive unit is lightweight due to the falling response, but happily, when mounting eight drive units in a vertical array, the parallel operation of the drive units gives a large boost in efficiency in the lower mid and bass end, which reinforces the bass very nicely in a way that evens out the bass/mid response to the point where I do not feel the need for subwoofers. The bass goes very deep when there is deep bass in the program and there is no cabinet honk or restriction as the arrays are open baffle. A well recorded kick drum sounds like a kick drum and I should know what this sounds like as I usually stood near to the drummer in the group I used to play in as a youngster.

Line arrays have benefits regarding reduced room interaction due to the way they propagate energy into the room. This is another mechanical solution to reduce an age-old problem of room interaction.

I have to admit that the top end rolls off a little earlier than many would require, however this can be a blessing with some program especially from digital sources, and the treble is nicely coherent.

The near field amplitude response of the line array falls off at only 3 dB for every doubling of distance whereas a point source propagating a spherical wave front falls off at 6 dB per doubling of distance. This adds further to the overall efficiency in a beneficial way. The very high efficiency of the lines means I only need a few watts to achieve concert levels, which is a nice side effect of the parallel drive units and the effects of the way the wave front is propagated into the room, which is once again a result of a mechanical solution.

Using eight drivers per channel means the lines can move enough air for concert levels without extreme cone excursions so the distortion levels of the drive units are very low.

So effectively I have moved away from complexity by implementing mechanical solutions in the loudspeaker design to minimise components in the signal path. There are no crossover components in the arrays. This has benefited the electronics too and my power amp has one mosfet and one resistor in the direct signal path and my line preamp is an LDR L-pad with one LDR directly in series with the signal. There is just no need for any voltage gain in these sections.

This works for me and I have not felt the need to work on the speakers or amplification for over four years. Prior to that I was always fiddling around spending vast amounts of R&D time looking for improvements.

Out of interest the system is great for home cinema duty too and some of the sound effects in the blockbuster films can be awesome.

Paul

Interesting Paul, The B200 is a good driver is it not? They are used in my OB's, along with a pair of 15" Eminence Alpha bass helpers per side.

[John]

I must admit even I might baulk at how big Paul speakers must be to achieve this
Richard I for one would be interested in what you done if people want to see an agenda so be it.

[Macca]

Open baffle is the ultimate solution if you are completely nerdy, have got a separate play room, don't have a wife, etc. I can't cater for that nor can anyone else even in a mildly commercial situation. Even horns are limited choice due to these factors.

Now I know I have railed against WAF speakers but there has to be compromise of sorts aesthetically. I am avoiding showing pics as I know I will be accused of something if I do.

If we took WAF into account when engineering we would still be living in the caves. Did they take WAF into account when designing Concord?:lolsign:

And post the pictures - if it helps the discussion why not?

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

I must admit even I might baulk at how big Paul speakers must be to achieve this
Richard I for one would be interested in what you done if people want to see an agenda so be it.
OK be it on your head, I predict the vultures will fly.

Three versions, a small one (on the floor) with 6inch bass/mid, a middle one with 8inch bass / mid and a larger one with two 8 inch bass / mid in an isobaric configuration.

As I say unless the price of acrylic fabrication comes down I doubt there will be more of them built and the cabinet is an intrinsic part of the design, so wood will not substitute without substantial rework. Three customers have early prototype pairs of the middle ones one in the UK one in Luxembourg and one in Belgium. I have the smaller and middle ones listed at ebay because I have one spare pair of cabinets for each.

The latest work I have done has taken them forward from when the prototypes were shown as Scalford two years ago and at Whittlebury last year.

http://i400.photobucket.com/albums/pp84/Envee-A/IMG_3946.jpg

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

Interesting Paul, The B200 is a good driver is it not? They are used in my OB's, along with a pair of 15" Eminence Alpha bass helpers per side.
The B200 is what Guy (Pure Sound) referred to earlier as the plastic horror. I will leave it at that and not tell you what I think.

[pure sound]

No. the Visaton B200 looks to be quite a nice driver & with a relatively high Qts should work well in OB.

http://www.visaton.de/en/chassis_zubehoer/breitband/b200_6.html

But I'm also interested to know why its higher o/p in the mid wouldn't sum just as the bass end does and why it wouldn't start beaming quite alot higher up.

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

No. the Visaton B200 looks to be quite a nice driver & with a relatively high Qts should work well in OB.

http://www.visaton.de/en/chassis_zubehoer/breitband/b200_6.html

But I'm also interested to know why its higher o/p in the mid wouldn't sum just as the bass end does and why it wouldn't start beaming quite alot higher up.
Whoops! sorry I presumed the B200 was the Kef B200.

[John]

I yet to hear those Richard so no idea how welll it works
For me I am very happy with my non WAV open baffles but admit I think my passive xover gets in the way a bit. The Crystals offer more resolution (no xover) but need careful partnering whilst mine are a bit more forgiving
I am still very interested in what Paul has done but think those speakers must be huge and I saying that being very happy with 2 x 15" drivers per speaker

[anthonyTD]

You could argue that my open baffle line source arrays use mechanical solutions for tricky issues. I use Visaton B200 drivers and their individual response curve is anything but flat through the audio band, although I suspect these curves were produced from drive units that were fresh off the production line and not run in. After a month or so of run in the ragged top end smoothes out considerably and the drive unit sounds more coherent through the audio band. The bass end of an individual drive unit is lightweight due to the falling response, but happily, when mounting eight drive units in a vertical array, the parallel operation of the drive units gives a large boost in efficiency in the lower mid and bass end, which reinforces the bass very nicely in a way that evens out the bass/mid response to the point where I do not feel the need for subwoofers. The bass goes very deep when there is deep bass in the program and there is no cabinet honk or restriction as the arrays are open baffle. A well recorded kick drum sounds like a kick drum and I should know what this sounds like as I usually stood near to the drummer in the group I used to play in as a youngster.

Line arrays have benefits regarding reduced room interaction due to the way they propagate energy into the room. This is another mechanical solution to reduce an age-old problem of room interaction.

I have to admit that the top end rolls off a little earlier than many would require, however this can be a blessing with some program especially from digital sources, and the treble is nicely coherent.

The near field amplitude response of the line array falls off at only 3 dB for every doubling of distance whereas a point source propagating a spherical wave front falls off at 6 dB per doubling of distance. This adds further to the overall efficiency in a beneficial way. The very high efficiency of the lines means I only need a few watts to achieve concert levels, which is a nice side effect of the parallel drive units and the effects of the way the wave front is propagated into the room, which is once again a result of a mechanical solution.

Using eight drivers per channel means the lines can move enough air for concert levels without extreme cone excursions so the distortion levels of the drive units are very low.

So effectively I have moved away from complexity by implementing mechanical solutions in the loudspeaker design to minimise components in the signal path. There are no crossover components in the arrays. This has benefited the electronics too and my power amp has one mosfet and one resistor in the direct signal path and my line preamp is an LDR L-pad with one LDR directly in series with the signal. There is just no need for any voltage gain in these sections.

This works for me and I have not felt the need to work on the speakers or amplification for over four years. Prior to that I was always fiddling around spending vast amounts of R&D time looking for improvements.

Out of interest the system is great for home cinema duty too and some of the sound effects in the blockbuster films can be awesome.

Paul

hi Paul,
A very intersting aproach.
i have experience of some linear arrays and their potential.
however, not on the scale of what you describe.
So,,,picks please [when you get chance] you have my full attention now!:eyebrows:
Anthony,TD...

[Ali Tait]

Open baffle is the ultimate solution if you are completely nerdy, have got a separate play room, don't have a wife, etc. I can't cater for that nor can anyone else even in a mildly commercial situation. Even horns are limited choice due to these factors.

Now I know I have railed against WAF speakers but there has to be compromise of sorts aesthetically. I am avoiding showing pics as I know I will be accused of something if I do.

Well I wouldn't call myself a nerd, and my partner is quite happy having a pair of large OB's in the lounge, as she loves the way they sound. In fact, not only are the OB's in the lounge, behind them are a pair of 2m tall electrostatics. She's a good lady.

[aquapiranha]

http://i400.photobucket.com/albums/pp84/Envee-A/IMG_3946.jpg

Richard, can you give us more details about the drivers? If you would like to keep that info confidential I would understand.

:)

[technobear]

No. the Visaton B200 looks to be quite a nice driver & with a relatively high Qts should work well in OB.

http://www.visaton.de/en/chassis_zubehoer/breitband/b200_6.html

But I'm also interested to know why its higher o/p in the mid wouldn't sum just as the bass end does and why it wouldn't start beaming quite alot higher up.

Quite a few on DIYaudio have removed the dust cap and replaced it with a phase plug. It is said this reduces the beaming and improves them no end.

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

Well I wouldn't call myself a nerd, and my partner is quite happy having a pair of large OB's in the lounge, as she loves the way they sound. In fact, not only are the OB's in the lounge, behind them are a pair of 2m tall electrostatics. She's a good lady.
Then count your blessing, with most it would lead to divorce if it was in the living room.

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

Richard, can you give us more details about the drivers? If you would like to keep that info confidential I would understand.
:)
The bass / mids cones are virtually rebuilt so there is little point in the name. There is a pic in an earlier thread of the 6 inch one showing magnet comparisons with the Dynaudio ones.

The HF unit is pretty standard, it is a D27TG which has been built by Scanspeak, Peerless and others. I do no mods to it.

[aquapiranha]

OK Thanks Richard. :)

[Rare Bird]

You know summert you listern to a pair of speakers, you like em or you don't.. what you like you have the oportunitiy to upgrade the crossover to give you what you like but in the hope of a more resolute sound. simples.. what you hoping for a miricle ?

[Alex_UK]

You know summert you listern to a pair of speakers, you like em or you don't.. what you like you have the oportunitiy to upgrade the crossover to give you what you like but in the hope of a more resolute sound. simples.. what you hoping for a miricle ?

But it really isn't that simple, is it Andre?

Just because you think you like a pair of speakers, you might not really. Maybe the flat earth bullshit got to you, perhaps you read too many magazines which brainwashed you into thinking that, or perhaps you were ripped off by a retailer who only convinced you to buy the speakers you think you like, just so he can take his 50% margin on them!

Perhaps in some misguided way, you think that the British Broadcasting Corporation doesn't have a clue about sound reproduction, and you're only pleased with your speakers because you avoided their ghastly legacy at all costs!

Then again, perhaps you are right, a pair of speakers sound right if you like them and it matters not a jot what the technology is - because, being a discerning listener, you would appreciate that in hifi, there is no such thing as "the one true way" - as always, the underlying technology is largely inconsequential to the final product. Implementation is key - there are great speakers with crossovers, great speakers without. Great valve amps, great solid state amps... Great belt drive turntables and great direct drive turntables... I'm sure I don't have to keep going on, do I? People tend to get bored when you just keep repeating the same old dross.

[Paul Hynes]

I am trying to keep up with posts on this thread tonight but things are getting a little disjointed so bear with me if I miss something,.

I cannot photo the lines this week as we are re-decorating the lounge and making it more music friendly, however I have some photos of the line arrays I took at the old Cumbrian address that are on Photobucket at the following links :-

http://i700.photobucket.com/albums/ww7/paulhynes/Picture036.jpg

http://i700.photobucket.com/albums/ww7/paulhynes/Picture039.jpg

and the power amp :-

http://i700.photobucket.com/albums/ww7/paulhynes/SE1.jpg

and the line preamp :-

http://i700.photobucket.com/albums/ww7/paulhynes/VCCS1C.jpg

Anyone wishing to experiment and use these designs for their own personal system is welcome, but please do not use them commercially without arranging a license, as this is very disrespectful, and one of the main reasons people do not publish details of their design work nowadays.

Chris (technobear),

The efficiency gain is frequency dependant and gradual. Horn-loaded systems display this effect for different reasons.. The higher frequencies tend to beam and not reinforce, but the low frequencies couple and reinforce. With a bit of care with the selection of drive units, this can give a relatively flat response down to the low frequencies.

Another attribute of the line source is the wave front generated is essentially cylindrical in its expansion into the listening area. A floor to ceiling line source would show no ceiling or floor reflection removing a prime source of room interaction. Any reflection off the side walls sounds like venue reverb. In this instance as the line are open baffle there is a reflection from the rear wall, like planar speakers. If the line arrays are orientated correctly, the delay time is long enough not to interfere with leading edge information and the imaging remains intact with the reflection once again sounding like venue reverb. Venue reverb is normal and we tend to accept it accordingly.

I am aware of the phase plug options but I am not finding problems with beaming in reality. Once again this is a natural phenomenon and I think our brains may just ignore the effect as long as it is not exaggerated. When I get some time I will experiment with the recommended phase plugs to see how they affect behaviour with the line array.

Richard,

You are quite right about the commercial issues and domestic harmony. This is why I have not bothered to market the line arrays. However I think I am one of the lucky ones in that my lass and my daughter both love music and film, and art in general for that matter, so I can do what I want with the AV system even though it is in the main lounge. With this system I have not been working on a commercial solution, it is purely for myself and I will follow my wildest dreams to get the system where I want it to be. Speaking of dreams, I often dream up solutions to engineering problems while asleep. Does this happen with you too? It can save a lot of R&D time if the dream works in real time.

Ali,

The B200 is a good driver with the right parameters for use on open baffles. It is not perfect like every other driver, but it does have that musical magic that few modern drivers, that I have tried, seem to have. As you have some to listen to you will know what I mean. I did consider large diameter bass units in the early stage of my B200 experience but the benefits of the line array were drawing me like a siren. The reason the line arrays do not sum higher up the frequency bandwidth is due to the directional nature of the higher frequencies. The further up the bandwidth you go the more directional the beam becomes. This does increase combing effects. Even with a single source, as soon as the wave front hits an obstacle and is reflected back into the sound field, a combing effect will occur. For those mot familiar with this terminology, a combing effect occurs when two or more wave fronts collide and intermingle causing reinforcement, or cancellation, depending on the relative phase of the wave front. This is a natural phenomenon and the brain accepts it as normal.

The B200 line array is 2 metres tall.

You are lucky that your lass has the same love of music as you do.

John,

The line arrays are not as overpowering as you might think, as the baffles are quite slim. Tall maybe, but slim. Is the Ben Harper you refer to in your musical appreciation the son of Roy Harper?

Anthony,

Line arrays are used a lot in Pro Audio for good reason, so I am not surprise you are familiar with them. OK, they are relatively big in the domestic environment. If you want to have a go with them I will load the original drawings on Photobucket and post links on this thread. The concept will work with other drive units as long as they are happy working on an open baffle and have a reasonable bandwidth. I have tried some lower cost full range drivers but the results were less satisfactory. In fact I have just skipped a load of unsatisfactory drive units. Recycled properly of course.

Paul

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

But it really isn't that simple, is it Andre?

Just because you think you like a pair of speakers, you might not really. Maybe the flat earth bullshit got to you, perhaps you read too many magazines which brainwashed you into thinking that, or perhaps you were ripped off by a retailer who only convinced you to buy the speakers you think you like, just so he can take his 50% margin on them!

Perhaps in some misguided way, you think that the British Broadcasting Corporation doesn't have a clue about sound reproduction, and you're only pleased with your speakers because you avoided their ghastly legacy at all costs!

You really are obsessed with me aren't you :mental:

[Alex_UK]

You really are obsessed with me aren't you :mental:

Oh yes, I'm planning on becoming your own personal stalker! ;)

[flatpopely]

Oh yes, I'm planning on becoming your own personal stalker! ;)

Already taken.

[Marco]

Ahem.....!!

As an aside, I do agree that there is no 'one true path' in audio and that implementation of design and components is the key. I don't see how anyone could dispute that.

Also, in terms of 'BBC-style' speakers, I will reiterate, that all the ones I've heard to date, from Chartwell LS35as, to Harbeth Compact 7s, M40.1s, Spendor BC1s, and ALL the current Spendor Classic range (including the SP100s I used for years), to my ears, sounded superb.

I think that context is also of paramount importance, and so I can only judge within the context which I heard the above speakers, so of course results will vary within the context of other people's listening experiences, for example Richard's, who obviously either has different tastes, or for whatever reason, wasn't as fortunate to hear 'BBC-style' speakers perform as optimally as I have, or Alex.

Anyway, let's not fall into the trap of absolutes (it is not healthy), and attribute equal validity to all of our respective experiences in audio, with loudspeakers, and everything else :cool:

Marco.

[Stratmangler]

You really are obsessed with me aren't you :mental:

He is probably not!

I'm getting rather pissed off with all this prima donna ad hominem bullshit that you keep posting, and I'm pretty damned sure I'm not the only one thinking the same way.

Which in turn is a real shame, 'cos there have been some interesting points raised in this thread.

If you think you're being attacked report it to to the management, then retreat while it is dealt with.
Report this if you like - I don't care if you do, to be truthful.

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

Richard,

You are quite right about the commercial issues and domestic harmony. This is why I have not bothered to market the line arrays. However I think I am one of the lucky ones in that my lass and my daughter both love music and film, and art in general for that matter, so I can do what I want with the AV system even though it is in the main lounge. With this system I have not been working on a commercial solution, it is purely for myself and I will follow my wildest dreams to get the system where I want it to be. Speaking of dreams, I often dream up solutions to engineering problems while asleep. Does this happen with you too? It can save a lot of R&D time if the dream works in real time.


Well I am not sure I should reply as I am sure it will just re-enforce some peoples opinion that I am bonkers.

I have very rarely talked about but yes that is the only way I design. Nothing goes on paper, I write and draw and move things around in my head and most of it happens at night usual before and after sleep. An idea is placed in my mind and it is almost like a muse is in my head directing me, most bizarre, not so much recently it has calmed down a lot. I built the prototypes including the case working straight from my head. Laying the board (in the old days from Letraset) straight from my head. For production it is either measured and drawn up from the prototype or I dictate the design to my case makers and they draw it up. I have always been able to do this even as a kid and I find it normal, my wife thinks I'm bonkers when I have a eureka moment in the middle of the night.

Those speakers were first built in my head in bed :scratch:

[Marco]

There's nothing at all unusual about that, Richard. It is how most artistically-minded people function, for example, musicians and songwriters.

I can certainly relate to that way of thinking, and design, much more than to the mundane principles of the 'scope squad' ;)

Marco.

[Marco]

Already taken.

What constructive purpose did that post serve, Andrew?

Marco.

[Alex_UK]

Richard, I don't think anyone has a problem with you being bonkers, the "mad professor" image is quite endearing, in my opinion. For me personally, it's the arrogance that your posts portray the "I'm right and everyone else is wrong" attitude that seems to permeate every thread you become entrenched in, and then we just go round and round, until as I sarcastically suggested, all the old prejudices come out one by one.

Without wishing to offend you personally (truly, I don't know *you*) - coupled with the (as I see it) obnoxious attitude, I don't think you're winning many of us over. So I would respectfully suggest that being bonkers is the least of our concerns. ;)

[Marco]

Guys, can we move away from discussing personalities, and get back to discussing the thread topic instead?

If you don't like someone, or what they write - put them on your ignore list: simples. I just can't be doing with the moaning, dressed up as something intentionally sarcastic.

I was enjoying the standard of discussion here when the likes of Paul Hynes, Anthony, Richard, Nick, Guy S, Ali, etc, were batting ideas of each other, with regard to loudspeaker design, so either we return to that, or I close the thread.

Your choice!

Marco.

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

Ahem.....!!

As an aside, I do agree that there is no 'one true path' in audio and that implementation of design and components is the key. I don't see how anyone could dispute that.

Also, in terms of 'BBC-style' speakers, I will reiterate, that all the ones I've heard to date, from Chartwell LS35as, to Harbeth Compact 7s, M40.1s, Spendor BC1s, and ALL the current Spendor Classic range (including the SP100s I used for years), to my ears, sounded superb.

I think that context is also of paramount importance, and so I can only judge within the context which I heard the above speakers, so of course results will vary within the context of other people's listening experiences, for example Richard's, who obviously either has different tastes, or for whatever reason, wasn't as fortunate to hear 'BBC-style' speakers perform as optimally as I have, or Alex.

Anyway, let's not fall into the trap of absolutes (it is not healthy), and attribute equal validity to all of our respective experiences in audio, with loudspeakers, and everything else :cool:

Marco.
Well at least I am not alone here now thinking they are crap. There is another deafy now in Guy.

Why do people think I post in absolutes, I post my opinion the same as everyone else. I would put IMO after every statement if you wish, but you think that is daft, so why can't people see that everything I say is IMO.

[Alex_UK]

Indeed, Marco. As you picked up on my post, the constructive bit (of my admitted sarcasm) - I truly don't believe there is a right or wrong answer to the original question - it is completely dependent on the design, as to whether or not you need a crossover and the aspirations of the designer. There are great implementations of every flavour - no crossover - passive crossover - active crossover - in the end, it will come down to how each version is implemented, and then to personal taste - as Andre eluded to, you will either like a particular design, or you won't - whether it has a crossover or not is in my opinion, largely irrelevant.

[Marco]

Well at least I am not alone here now thinking they are crap. There is another deafy now in Guy.

Why do people think I post in absolutes, I post my opinion the same as everyone else. I would put IMO after every statement if you wish, but you think that is daft, so why can't people see that everything I say is IMO.


Well, Richard, to be blunt (and you know I mean no offence), you do tend to rattle on sometimes about the 'same old, same old', in terms of your particular 'pet hates', often I think without even being aware you are doing it.....

Therefore, I'd treat Alex's earlier gentle dig (his first post on the matter) as a polite reminder of that ;)

I don't think anyone here is "deaf". Like I said before, out with of personal tastes, context is the key. Perhaps if you'd heard some of the BBC loudspeaker designs in a different context, with different equipment, results would've been different? It's not an impossibility.

Therefore, I think it would be an idea to keep that thought in your head, rather than simply write off ALL BBC-style loudspeakers as crap, because to do so would simply be absolutist and smack of simplistic thinking, and IMO, you have a much more inquisitive mind than that!

Marco.

[Marco]

What constructive purpose did that post serve, Andrew?

Marco.

I'm still waiting for an answer to this Andrew - trust me, ignoring me is not an option! ;)

Marco.

[Butuz]

I'm still waiting for an answer to this Andrew - trust me, ignoring me is not an option! ;)

Marco.

That's not what your missus told me :lolsign:

Just trying to take the pressure off a fellow Andrew :steam:

Butuz

[Marco]

Lol - no worries. But if Andrew's only purpose of making that remark was to wind Richard up (yet again), then I'll have finally lost my patience.

Marco.

[Ali Tait]

Quite a few on DIYaudio have removed the dust cap and replaced it with a phase plug. It is said this reduces the beaming and improves them no end.

Chris/Paul,
Yes, I have put phase plugs in mine and it was indeed a good improvement. Just seems to smooth out and extend the top.end. I feel no need for a tweeter. I used Planet10 plugs.

Paul,
Regarding the use of two bass drivers, I did not design these baffles, but as I understand it, the use of the Eminence in an OB causes a -6db drop in level at bass frequencies. Using two drivers redresses this imbalance.

[John]

Paul Ben Harper is not related to Roy
His music is a mixiture of rock soul blues folk and reggae He has a voice is nearly as good as Jeff Buckley and a good guitar player too
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Harper

[MartinT]

I cannot photo the lines this week as we are re-decorating the lounge and making it more music friendly, however I have some photos of the line arrays I took at the old Cumbrian address that are on Photobucket at the following links :-

http://i700.photobucket.com/albums/ww7/paulhynes/Picture036.jpg

http://i700.photobucket.com/albums/ww7/paulhynes/Picture039.jpg

and the power amp :-

http://i700.photobucket.com/albums/ww7/paulhynes/SE1.jpg

Paul, the line arrays look very interesting and appeal to my sense of right-ness. However, it's the power amp that has me drawing breath in amazement. What a fantastically simple and elegant circuit. Clearly it's going to be very power supply dependent, but of course that is your game. What kind of output do you get from one of these and is the output impedance low enough?

[Ali Tait]

Those speakers look great Paul. Could you provide more info please? PM would be fine if you'd rather keep it more private.

[StanleyB]

How accurate is speaker reproduction anyhow?

[MartinT]

How accurate is speaker reproduction anyhow?

It depends on your reference. If you like classical or acoustic music, it's easy to compare. Anything electronic (jazz, rock etc.) and you're into a whole world of preferences and lack of baseline.

[anthonyTD]

Hi All,
ok, lets take this debate a little further and discuss what we are actualy doing when we use either cross-overs [be it mechanical or passive/electrical]
What are the goals we wish to acheive, and what affect might this have on the performance of the speaker/driver and cabinet as a whole ?
Anthony,TD...

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

Well, Richard, to be blunt (and you know I mean no offence), you do tend to rattle on sometimes about the 'same old, same old', in terms of your particular 'pet hates', often I think without even being aware you are doing it.....

Therefore, I'd treat Alex's earlier gentle dig (his first post on the matter) as a polite reminder of that ;)

I don't think anyone here is "deaf". Like I said before, out with of personal tastes, context is the key. Perhaps if you'd heard some of the BBC loudspeaker designs in a different context, with different equipment, results would've been different? It's not an impossibility.

Therefore, I think it would be an idea to keep that thought in your head, rather than simply write off ALL BBC-style loudspeakers as crap, because to do so would simply be absolutist and smack of simplistic thinking, and IMO, you have a much more inquisitive mind than that!

Marco.
I don't think I am doing any different to anyone else, expressing preferences and opinion. I listened to *all* the new speakers that appeared on the market during the early 70's when the BBC designs appeared, up to 1977 and they were all bland, undynamic and one trick ponies. Do you want me to lie to you to protect the sensitivities of some of your members! And ***IMO***!!! this was largely caused by over complex crossovers. After 1977 I was not listening on a regular basis apart from at shows or shops and what I heard just re-enforced my opinion. It was such a breath of fresh air by the mid 80's to walk into Bespoke Audio in Stockport and listen to some good US style speakers in the Allisons, to get away from either Linn speakers in some shops or BBC types in other shops. I was very much in the minority, but I probably always have and always will be.

I do not have absolutism or simplistic thinking, I have experience and opinion, nothing more. It is not simplistic when I worked with the design and production team at AR UK, nor was it simplistic to know how those crossovers worked, how they influenced the sound and also designed for both personal use (in the early days), and for commercial use.

How can you discuss crossovers and the influence they have without talking about the two expremes 1/ BBC design 2/ Crossoverless design, and most of the discussion has been about *OTHER* peoples crossoverless designs.

I do not accept you argument - full stop! but I respect you opinion, it is mine that is not being respected. If I feel I am locked in a room and gagged with tabboo subjects all around me and I am not allowed to talk about them because I step on a few toes, then what is the point of posting. I may step on a few toes (I always have) but I don't go around stamping on some ones feet as is my fate from these people. Mine are due to my discussion and opinion *on topic* theirs are deliberate and personal attacks.

[Ali Tait]

My take on it is it's a good idea to have a wide range driver to cover top and mid and mid bass perhaps, and use woofers to fill in the bottom end. This avoids crossing over where the ear is most sensitive, which a lot of commercial boxes do. Also, to my ears a full or wide range driver just sounds more real and coherent.

Electrostatics have particular strengths in soundstaging, imaging and transient response for similar reasons, given that they are ostensibly a full range single driver with extremely light mass. Like anything else they are not perfect, but what they do well they do better than anything else.

[sq225917]

I like arriving late in the day to a topic it means you bypass all the bullshit and interpersonal rivalry.

To answer Richards initial question.

Some loudspeaker designers, such as the previously mentioned Robin Marshall design the whole speaker, they are electrical, mechanical and acoustical engineers of the highest order and are able to design drivers, and load them correctly, acoustically, electrically and mechanically in such a way that they require no 'additional crossover parts' to allow the drivers to align in a sonically unobtrusive way at the crossover point. They do their math, calculate the correct slopes and everything works. I doubt you'd luck into this level of accuracy empirically without the help of measurement and calculations, it seems unlikely.

Robin isn't the only guy to take this approach REF 3a also make their midbass drivers this way, though they use simple slopes in their 3-ways to roll off into the bass driver. nevertheless it's the same approach on a grander scale. The point is that they make their own midbass units. Do you see the pattern yet.

Now Joe Bloggs speaker 'manufacturer' might not have the all round engineering prowess to design and make his own drive units. He's pretty much stuck with what he can get from the off-the-peg shelf at Tymphany etc, or what he can have slightly modded from the next shelf down. (Or more likely the case these days from the shelf marked 'custom' which is actually the off-the-peg shelf for liars.)

He's kinda screwed, he has to do something to make his driver choice meet in the middle, assuming he's not picked two drivers that were designed to work together by the manufacturer into a specific volume. So he has to build an ugly electrical crossover to tailor the X-O point and the slopes either side of this point.

That's the rub. You either use the drivers you can get, and stick them in a different box to everyone else and then cobble together a X-O to make them work as best as you can, or you design everything from scratch.

The third way would be to take two drive units that you like the look/sound off. Stick them in a box and then shape their responses by ear by acoustic or physical loading. I assume this is Richard's preferred approach to avoiding the evils of the crossover and it's as valid as any other approach.

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

It depends on your reference. If you like classical or acoustic music, it's easy to compare. Anything electronic (jazz, rock etc.) and you're into a whole world of preferences and lack of baseline.
I would add female vocal and especially piano and I will completely agree with you.

The taste for only rock and pop has spawned the home PA system approach that was the flat earth.

[Marco]

I do not have absolutism or simplistic thinking, I have experience and opinion, nothing more.


Yes and we respect your opinions and experience, Richard (it is precisely why you are here), but there are only a finite amount of times you can mention the same things before they become stale.

And that is the issue here, not that we don't rate your opinions or consider them valid.

So, moving on now, I'd appreciate your views on the question Anthony has just posed? :)

Marco.

[StanleyB]

Sometimes simplistic thinking beats experience and opinions. I have used that principle many times, and with great results.

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

Hi All,
ok, lets take this debate a little further and discuss what we are actualy doing when we use either cross-overs [be it mechanical or passive/electrical]
What are the goals we wish to acheive, and what affect might this have on the performance of the speaker/driver and cabinet as a whole ?
Anthony,TD...
How long have you been designing valve amps - it seems you have loads of experience. Without that experience would you produce what you do now, I doubt it, to actually "luck" onto something good is like winning the lottery.

Well for me it is exactly the same, you try things, you have ideas, some work some don't, you listen and you choose. It is that ability (or not) that you rise or fall on. That is the empirical approach to design. My pet hate is the white coat brigade, who see the white coat as a qualification and no one else is in their club. They are brainwashed into thinking that you can create something by purely applying objective criteria, they don't listen. They calculate objectively, they make prototype, they put them in an anechoic chamber and play test tones through them, and read off B&K graphs and say that's it and sign off the design to production. The outcome is more often than not a pigs ear.

Or you get the approach where you limit the design and aim for a specific set of criteria. The opposites in this approach I see as Linn speakers at one end and BBC at the other. They listen, but they have fixed criteria and narrow the potential. It was entirely because it was the BBC design that held the market when Linn first appeared that they took an opposite approach. It was perceived in the early 70's that BBC design was not good at rock and pop. PA systems were making an impact at live concerts (to the extent that you are no longer listening to the band you listen to the PA). Linn persuaded a PA amp manufacturer to join them in the marketing take over they entered into, and the home PA system was born. I personally don't like either approach, but given the choice I would prefer the Linn approach. Yet there were bloody good all round speakers being produced on the east coast of the USA at the time by Allison and Snell that were virtually ignored because of this nationalistic *EGO* thing that the Brits get involved in.

So going into specifics of this cabinet this, this driver that, just applies to that specific product / compromise. The real real question is conceptual.

[anthonyTD]

Richard,
I understand and agree with a lot of what has been written in your posts.
However, What i was trying to get at was, what are we physicaly or electricaly doing to a specific driver and cabinet combination to get the desired affect we require. then once we have established that, we can then descuss why one method might be more desireable than another, i think this may have been what was on your mind when you started this thread, please excuse my ramblings if that is not the case.
Anthony,TD...

[Paul Hynes]

It’s nice to see such interest in the line arrays, however, I do not wish to take Richard’s thread off topic with further discussion about them, so I am going to start another line array specific thread, either later today or tomorrow when I get a little spare time. I hope those who have shown interest here will also monitor the new thread and join in with their own ideas. I will answer all your line array posts, since my last post in this thread, on the new thread and restrict any further comments regarding this thread topic to the thread theme.

Paul

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

Richard,
I understand and agree with a lot of what has been written in your posts.
However, What i was trying to get at was, what are we physicaly or electricaly doing to a specific driver and cabinet combination to get the desired affect we require. than once we have established that, we can then descuss why one method might be more desireable than another, i think this may have been what was on your mind when you started this thread, please excuse my ramblings if that is not the case.
Anthony,TD...
Well when I started the thread I was thinking conceptually not specifically. But of course specific is important. All I can do is talk about my specific design. I see two ways to approach speaker design, first would be to start with the basic drivers and cab and then add thing as in mechanical damping and electronic filters to either get what reads flat anechoically or sounds the way you want. I use the listening approach, but once I get to that point I reverse it and start removing things or substituting to fine tune. I have a agenda to remove anything and everything I can from the signal path and still work. I don't see mechanical or acoustical properties as in the signal path. Signal path for me is an electrical term, mechanical things sit *on* the musical path, if that makes any sense. And very often especially if primarily having a damping effect they actually sit on the music and cover it.

Anything that interrupts the connection between the amplifier output stage and the speaker voice coil is decoupling the two from each other, and that can *only* interfere with the music by changing it. It is the compromise of what is needed to remove the imperfection of the object and getting too much of it which then sits on the music. It is just another yin - yang dichotomy. The one with too much is dynamically flat and bland but can be said to be accurate tonally, the other can make you wince but can't stop you wanting to bop or wag you feet :lolsign: I want both but you have to make some compromises, you just constantly try to find ways to remove those compromises.

[Marco]

It’s nice to see such interest in the line arrays, however, I do not wish to take Richard’s thread off topic with further discussion about them, so I am going to start another line array specific thread, either later today or tomorrow when I get a little spare time. I hope those who have shown interest here will also monitor the new thread and join in with their own ideas. I will answer all your line array posts, since my last post in this thread, on the new thread and restrict any further comments regarding this thread topic to the thread theme.


That's great, Paul, and much appreciated. It's that sort of professional, unselfish, attitude which epitomises what AoS is all about. You are a credit to this community, mate! :)

Marco.

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

It’s nice to see such interest in the line arrays, however, I do not wish to take Richard’s thread off topic with further discussion about them, so I am going to start another line array specific thread, either later today or tomorrow when I get a little spare time. I hope those who have shown interest here will also monitor the new thread and join in with their own ideas. I will answer all your line array posts, since my last post in this thread, on the new thread and restrict any further comments regarding this thread topic to the thread theme.

Paul
But stay here as well Paul as I for one would welcome your input on the topic.

[Theo]

My techncal knowledge on speaker design is pretty minimal: I can read specs without knowing how relevant they are - ultimately I'm just a punter who buys what he likes the sound of. I understand where Richard is coming from simply because the speakers with the simplest crossovers seem to be the ones I like to listen to, past and present (Royd, Allison, early Snells, etc).

However, my other bug bear is the box itself: no matter how you damp it (or indeed, don't damp it, allowing it to become a musical instrument in itself), I'm aware of the "box" characteristics in so many designs. My own speakers are very good (Neat Ultimatum MF7s), but even with these you cannot escape the point source effect, no matter how good the dynamic impact. It's why I love the ESL 57s: they don't do all things well, but they can do fabulous imagery, soundstaging, and the sense that music is not coming from a fixed source, but all around you.

The only modern production version I've heard recently that give me that lack of boxiness is the Jamo R909 dipolar speaker. These are simply astonishing in the soundstage and dynamics they portray, with the bass impact so needed for rock/jazz music, and a total freedom of box effects. I absolutely love them, and when I next rob a bank, I'm going to buy some. I've no idea what the crossover is doing, but I don't really care - these speakers work - IMHO :)

http://www.jamo.com/eu-en/products/r-909-description/

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

My techncal knowledge on speaker design is pretty minimal: I can read specs without knowing how relevant they are - ultimately I'm just a punter who buys what he likes the sound of. I understand where Richard is coming from simply because the speakers with the simplest crossovers seem to be the ones I like to listen to, past and present (Royd, Allison, early Snells, etc).

However, my other bug bear is the box itself: no matter how you damp it (or indeed, don't damp it, allowing it to become a musical instrument in itself), I'm aware of the "box" characteristics in so many designs. My own speakers are very good (Neat Ultimatum MF7s), but even with these you cannot escape the point source effect, no matter how good the dynamic impact. It's why I love the ESL 57s: they don't do all things well, but they can do fabulous imagery, soundstaging, and the sense that music is not coming from a fixed source, but all around you.

The only modern production version I've heard recently that give me that lack of boxiness is the Jamo R909 dipolar speaker. These are simply astonishing in the soundstage and dynamics they portray, with the bass impact so needed for rock/jazz music, and a total freedom of box effects. I absolutely love them, and when I next rob a bank, I'm going to buy some. I've no idea what the crossover is doing, but I don't really care - these speakers work - IMHO :)

http://www.jamo.com/eu-en/products/r-909-description/
Blimey Jamo producing an acceptable hi-fi speaker :eek: if this goes on Bose will produce one next :lolsign:

Seriously Theo, I would never have looked at them as I remember what Jamo were like in the past, cheap boom boxes. So congrats on finding these.

[John]

Theo a lot of us have moved away from boxed speakers because of the issues of colouration that can be associated with this approach and whist I think the Jamo are good the drivers are not the most friendly to drive so consider other options as will give you a bit more freedom over amp choice in the future

[Theo]

Hi John

Yes, I'm aware they really need some muscle to get the best out of them - I think my four Exposure XVI monos can cope :D

The speakers in your avatar look, er, interesting. I assume they are dipolar - are they DIY?

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

Theo a lot of us have moved away from boxed speakers because of the issues of colouration that can be associated with this approach and whist I think the Jamo are good the drivers are not the most friendly to drive so consider other options as will give you a bit more freedom over amp choice in the future
It is possible to design a box that doesn't behave or sound like a box. Material and driver orientation has a lot to do with it.

[John]

Yes but will generally weigh a ton and cost a small fortune

Theo Yes Dipole DIY and not so hard to make either

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

Yes but will generally weigh a ton and cost a small fortune

OK I will give another of my opinions, but please remember it is my opinion and does not deny or destroy any other members opinion :ner:

To stop a box being a box. well number one use a material that doesn't *sound* original versions had HDF boxes and they had a sound. The current version uses 20mm black acrylic and it simply doesn't sound. Now lets look at acoustic influence. Well LF is omni directional where as HF beams from the transducer and in between them it slowly progresses from one to the other as the frequency increases. Convention says that drive unit should face you, but as you see with some sub woofers for LF the driver orientation is meaning less. So by putting the bass mid physically 90 degrees out of phase with the listener you have a acoustic filter removing HF from your perception from that driver unless you stand up and walk over to it. All the HF from the top does is provide omni directional in fill to the sound stage. Then all you have to do is gently roll off the tweeter at approx the same rate as the acoustic rolls off the bass / mid oppositely. The doping is purely to control nodes and in fill nulls.

The added advantage is that now the bass mid is in phase with its coupling to the environment (the speaker stand). So there is no potential for even minute rocking vibration that disturbs the HF phase characteristic of conventional loudspeakers. Also bass notes being coupled direct to the environment means that the bass goes down lower and into the feeling as well as heard band as it drives the floor in phase with the music. This gives superb bass definition compared with conventionally positioned drivers of similar size.

Disadvantages, well they need setting up in the acoustic and this is more fiddly than with normal speakers. Frequency balance is adjusted by the distance from the back wall. In large rooms back to six inches or less, in smaller rooms further away. Toe in acts as a camera lens adjusting the focus of the image. When set correctly you create a cinemascope sound effect with a very large out of box image both pasted across the back wall and in the third dimension (this adjusted by toe in).

Anyway that is the basis of the idea, and using the drivers conventionally did not show the lack of crossover potential that this configuration gives you.

[John]

Richard could you give a simpler explination of what you wrote, sorry a lot of this went over my head

[nat8808]

I do not accept you argument - full stop! but I respect you opinion,

I don't think Marco was arguing or making an argument.. at least not in the terms that I would call an argument. Just an observation that is out there for others to pick up on too - lots of people love BBC style speakers and even in LOVE with them!

Not a fact that can be ignored really - it all comes down to subjectivism and people simply enjoying what they hear rather than worrying about how they are constructed or their design specs..

Someone who doesn't like the "BBC sound" could say that those that do were deaf or idiots or have been brainwashed.. but that would smack of arrogance or fighting talk and really doesn't go down well at all in an open forum like this!

Better to realise instead that people have differing tastes and accept that calmly.

As someone who doesn't know that much about electronics I have to go on what I hear too and have become (and enjoy being) a box swapper and make my choices via my ears. I did study physics for many years and realise how complex interactions can become from a small number of variables and so, especially when it comes to human reactions to sound and music which we don't fully understand, it's all far too complex to have absolutes.

Even if I did know a lot about it I'd still rely on my ears at the end of the day.

I'm surprised really as I thought Richard was the ultimate advocator of subjectivism - it's all in the ears etc

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

Richard could you give a simpler explination of what you wrote, sorry a lot of this went over my head
That is why I originally argued that you had to listen, and tried not to describe it, it was this that got me into the spat yesterday.

I really cannot make it simpler than it is, I could make it more detailed and theoretical, but that would probably confuse you more.

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

I don't think Marco was arguing or making an argument.. at least not in the terms that I would call an argument. Just an observation that is out there for others to pick up on too - lots of people love BBC style speakers and even in LOVE with them!

Not a fact that can be ignored really - it all comes down to subjectivism and people simply enjoying what they hear rather than worrying about how they are constructed or their design specs..

Someone who doesn't like the "BBC sound" could say that those that do were deaf or idiots or have been brainwashed.. but that would smack of arrogance or fighting talk and really doesn't go down well at all in an open forum like this!

Better to realise instead that people have differing tastes and accept that calmly.

As someone who doesn't know that much about electronics I have to go on what I hear too and have become (and enjoy being) a box swapper and make my choices via my ears. I did study physics for many years and realise how complex interactions can become from a small number of variables and so, especially when it comes to human reactions to sound and music which we don't fully understand, it's all far too complex to have absolutes.

Even if I did know a lot about it I'd still rely on my ears at the end of the day.

I'm surprised really as I thought Richard was the ultimate advocator of subjectivism - it's all in the ears etc
What the F*** is this again, you don't give up do you. Why are you so focused on me and not my opinions.

[nat8808]

It is possible to design a box that doesn't behave or sound like a box. Material and driver orientation has a lot to do with it.

In a simple way, the B&W Matrix series were the first speakers I'd heard that no longer sounded like a box - to be honest, I didn't realise I was hearing the box until I'd heard them! I'd just sold my house mate my old speakers a day before I played him the 805 Matrix's - he wished I hadn't!

Extensive bracing inside but I'm sure there are much more inovative ways of avoiding the box sound, perhaps one being to use a material that behaves differently. SL700s you can't hear the boxyness either, probably because the bo sound it does no doubt produce is slightly unnatural and so less easy for the ear to pick out.

Probably similar case for acrylic cases - acrylic is crazily expensive Richard, what were you thinking? :lol: Was helping someone set up for a small art show and the acrylic shelves were £60 each alone, just straight cuts.

[John]

I hope one day I can listen then

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

I hope one day I can listen then
They are in Epping if you want to make the journey.

[John]

Pm sent

[nat8808]

What the F*** is this again, you don't give up do you. Why are you so focused on me and not my opinions.

???

I'm not - calm down and please try not to read into things in that way. I never have been focused on you. Surprised, confused and frustrated by some of your reactions perhaps, but certainly not focused on you yourself.

I am surprised that you don't appear to relate to the fact that some people love the BBC 'sound' (if there is an overall sound?). That in itself is only my opinion - my opinion that I'm surprised, surprise of course because I don't know you and gradually picking up on your expressed opinions so as to understand where you're coming from..

Anyway.. Please let's move on!

I was really talking about BBC speakers and how despite the complex crossovers (instinctively I also baulk at the massive amount of metal in there - the Rogers Studio Monitor cross over for the Coles is a tranny bigger than most power transformers!) they do have certain aspects to the sound they produce that I too find appealing.

They don't do everything I'd want so have often moved on, but certainly very enjoyable speakers.

[jostber]

Proclaim Audio has a bit of a different approach to the speaker design and crossover:

http://www.proclaimaudioworks.com/proclaim.htm

This also goes for the Acapella Speakers:

http://www.acapella.de/de/hornlautsprecher/sphaeron.php

Avantgarde:

http://www.avantgarde-acoustic.de/horn-loudspeaker-en.html

Studio Electric:

http://www.studio-electric.com/loudspekers3.html

SW Speakers:

http://www.swspeakers.com/

[Welder]

You need a crossover to allow individual drivers to work within their optimal frequency range :)

[nat8808]

Proclaim Audio has a bit of a different approach to the speaker design and crossover:

http://www.proclaimaudioworks.com/proclaim.htm

This also goes for the Acapella Speakers:

http://www.acapella.de/de/hornlautsprecher/sphaeron.php

Avantgarde:

http://www.avantgarde-acoustic.de/horn-loudspeaker-en.html

Studio Electric:

http://www.studio-electric.com/loudspekers3.html

SW Speakers:

http://www.swspeakers.com/

Has anyone ever taken a bowling ball and hollowed it out?? Next time I see a couple at a car boot, I may pick them up!

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

You need a crossover to allow individual drivers to work within their optimal frequency range :)
Why?

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

Has anyone ever taken a bowling ball and hollowed it out?? Next time I see a couple at a car boot, I may pick them up!
Back in the 70's someone produced a speaker with a full range driver (Eagle I think) fixed in the top of a goldfish bowl. They sold it commercially and it was relatively successful.

[John]

You need a crossover to allow individual drivers to work within their optimal frequency range :)

Nice to see you back John:)

[nat8808]

Back in the 70's someone produced a speaker with a full range driver (Eagle I think) fixed in the top of a goldfish bowl. They sold it commercially and it was relatively successful.

Excellent :lol:

[anthonyTD]

Back in the 70's someone produced a speaker with a full range driver (Eagle I think) fixed in the top of a goldfish bowl. They sold it commercially and it was relatively successful.
I used Bandor units in a very similar way, a long time ago now.
Anthony,TD...

[Marco]

You need a crossover to allow individual drivers to work within their optimal frequency range :)

Yo, mate - a very warm welcome back :) Hope it's not just a fleeting visit! :cool:

Marco.

[technobear]

You need a crossover to allow individual inadequately engineered drivers to work within their optimal frequency range :)

Fixt! :whistle:

[BTH K10A]

I listened to *all* the new speakers that appeared on the market during the early 70's when the BBC designs appeared, up to 1977 and they were all bland, undynamic and one trick ponies.

Is this statement pertaining to all or just BBC influenced speakers?

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

Is this statement pertaining to all or just BBC influenced speakers?
We had agreement to borrow anything new from a couple of existing AR dealers, or we would go and do it in the shop. I don't know of any early to mid 70's widely marketed speakers we didn't get to listen to.

[BTH K10A]

Your experience is obviously different to mine. I thought speakers like the JBL L100, L200 and especially the L300 were anything but "bland, undynamic and one trick ponies". ;)

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

Your experience is obviously different to mine. I thought speakers like the JBL L100, L200 and especially the L300 were anything but "bland, undynamic and one trick ponies". ;)
Sigh! you know perfectly well I was talking about the BBC design speakers amongst them.