Why do you need a speaker crossover - discuss

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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...

---

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..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

"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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr Bunsen Honeydew

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,

Quote:

---

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr Bunsen Honeydew

"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

Quote:

---

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyTD

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr Bunsen Honeydew

"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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr Bunsen Honeydew

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. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr Bunsen Honeydew

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,

Quote:

---

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ali Tait

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.

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!)