Why do you need a speaker crossover - discuss

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

Quite a few driver manufacturers still make cones that decouple with rising frequency.

The Biflex is an extreme example. Others use pleated cones.

The movement of a whizzer cone is usually decoupled from the main cone at higher frequencies so this too is a form of mechanical crossover and is employed to good effect in my Zu's.

One very clever model uses a metal film cone of varying thickness. It's thinner in the middle. As frequency rises, the outer part of the cone progressively stops moving - a sort of continuously variable mechanical crossover. I am of course talking about the Jordan JX92S.

Any other examples?

Struth not someone who actually wants to contribute to the thread, what a surprise!

[Marco]

I disagree, Richard. Much of it is down to the unnecessarily aggressive way you react sometimes to fairly innocuous things, which creates a bigger problem than was there in the first place. You need to learn sometimes not to react, and instead turn the other cheek.

You will gain many more friends and respect that way, which will go some way towards eradicating any problems in future.

But let's leave it there now until we have a chat - ta!

Marco.

[Welder]

Dr Bunsen Honeydew

Why?

Well this is a matter of opinion but to date I haven’t heard a full range driver that gives an even response throughout the audible frequency range.
So, at least for the majority of commercial designs two drivers as a minimum have been preferred.
It is possible to drive a two unit array with separate amplifiers or even by using an electronic crossover; with the later obviously there is still a crossover, it’s just not in the box.

Part of the problem is even full range drivers change impedance with heat. Granted some of the open baffle designs partially overcome this problem but they still present an amplifier with a variable load.
Once again in theory, a well designed crossover using say a zobel network, post main crossover, can ensure that any impedance changes are compensated for.
I personally still favour a 3 unit array. What components and what crossover complexity gives the best results is open to debate.
However, the 3 unit array, with a crossover gives the easiest path for ensuring that each drive unit is restricted to its optimal frequency imo.

[Alex_UK]

The whole situation is pointless Marco they wont let it go, they are creating threads about it that you have to close. I hate to let idiots win but there really is no point in me trying to post here.

I think you will probably be surprised at me chipping in here Richard, but walking away really isn't the answer. In the same way that Marco banning you because some people don't like you being here - isn't the answer.

I'm going to offer some advice, which is of course "in my opinion" so please, accept it for what it is. Were you ever in the Scouts? It matters not if you were, or not - I'm going to tell you the story anyway...

Traditionally, a handshake is always offered with the right hand - the theory being that in doing so, the parties no longer had access to their weapons - in those days of course, a sword.

Now the Scouts always shake hands with the left hand - the theory in this case being that it is a far braver thing to do to put down one's shield and drop your defence.

I'm not sure if that really gets my point across, but I hope so.

And really, I am not trying to be smart or clever - there is much you can offer to this forum, but always expecting to be attacked is only going to become a self-fulfilling prophecy - I really think you need to consider how best to become part of the community and using offence as the best defence is not (in my opinion) the way to go about it.

There's no reason why we can't all get along, if both sides exercise a bit more tolerance, and crucially, respect.

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

Richard, I hear what you're saying, but the fact is I know Andy better than you. He was not "angling" for anything, and was simply expressing his opinion, the same as you.
Marco.

You obviously haven't read the posts, he expressed no opinion, he made no contribution, he asked me questions until he thought he had found an angle or mistake in my reply, that was all he was after. And that is all that a *few* of your members are after and it will just go on and on in a pointless manner, they are not listening to you, they have an agenda, they start threads you have to close trying to angle the subject into it.

We have discussed it privately that I will stick with it as I don't want to let the bastards win (as in the saying), but it hasn't lessened, they are still simmering in the background waiting for an opportunity. I am far from perfect but I am who I am that will not change - so as I say it looks pointless.

[Marco]

Good advice, Alex!

I am far from perfect but I am who I am that will not change....

Richard,

Everyone can change (a little) if they want to, and sometimes it is necessary in order to make things better. And this is one such occasion.

You told me that you thought AoS and I had changed MASSIVELY, compared to how things were a few years back, and that this was the reason why you rejoined, so if I can change, why can't you?

Intelligent human beings adapt in order to survive successfully in different environments.


Please read again (and digest thoroughly) what I wrote to you last night:

Much of it is down to the unnecessarily aggressive way you react sometimes to fairly innocuous things, which creates a bigger problem than was there in the first place. You need to learn sometimes not to react, and instead turn the other cheek.

You will gain many more friends and respect that way, which will go some way towards eradicating any problems in future.

Think about that *very* carefully (especially the bit in bold), and we'll discuss it later

Now, this time I'm insisting that EVERYONE leaves it there (and that means you too, Richard), as far as this subject is concerned, so only on-topic posts, regarding speaker crossovers, will be allowed to remain. ANYTHING ELSE will be deleted instantly, and if necessary, the thread locked.

I trust that I've made myself clear, folks!!

Marco.

[DSJR]

I've been itching to contribute to this thread for pages and pages now, but didn't feel qualified before to make an opinion before for fear of being slaughtered online. Still.....

I personally like the idea of a well designed drive unit needing as little "correction" as possible and I personally think that this is being done quite well these days and from unlikely "BBC derived" sources too, judging by the anti-BBC speaker design views by a couple of posters on this thread IMO (how out of date you guys are, the main offenders were discontinued twenty five to thirty years ago now and it was only with sluggish vinyl sources that these products really suffered).

The thing is, as I understand it, is that mounting a drive unit onto a baffle is going to modify its response, isn't it? Shoving a modified driver on top of a cubic box may be one way of doing it, but doesn't that just transfer the problems into room reflections? I had enough of this with Isobariks where no two 'Brik systems ever sounded the same due to room differences, even though Linn tried very hard later on to get them all as similar as possible. Get it right and its stunning, get it wrong and you'd suffer. The other thing is that dispersion can be an issue as a cone speaker of say 6 to 8" goes up in frequency and a blocking capacitor on a tweeter a la Epos 14 is going to mean the tweeter is working down into the upper mid and significantly overlapping with the bass unit giving all sorts of possible phase issues? and apparently their acoustic output alone is enough to even set the bass unit ringing in the case of many metal-cone drivers, which take off big-time when they finally let go at 5khz or so, right in the lower treble and this despite steep crossovers being used on some -

Again, as I understand it, a conventional driver-in-a-box setup as most of us use can be very good indeed, the designer-trick being to make the whole greater than the sum of the parts I think.

Rather than adding yet more gunk to a speaker to slug its treble response, shouldn't the diaphragm and motor assembly be ideally made light in weight to increase efficiency? I understand there are modern cone materials out there now which have a fantastically wide and smooth response and with great clarity. This is where my lack of knowledge comes to bear, but it's an honest question - I'm afraid I had enough with heavy cones/coils with my ATC's, the coil assemblies of the 20's being massively heavy for what they were and really needing those massive magnets to get them to work at all


By the way, speech is a wonderful thing to use as a reference because our ears are set up to be most sensitive to this apparently - same thing should be considered when setting up our living-listening rooms IMO. Get our voices to sound reasably ok in a room and the rest can often fit in well. I found in my time that one man's bass is another's boom and another man's clarity, detail and sonic-excitement is another's harshness. Just my thoughts, but often repeated in dems I found.

[MartinT]

Great observations, Dave. The BBC Radio 3 presenter's voice test is a mandatory one for getting things sounding neutral.

I wonder whether some speakers of old, vilified for their old-tech drivers, would actually sound very good on the end of current highly capable sources and amps. I used to have a lovely pair of Cambridge R40 transmission line speakers using the classic KEF B139, B110 and T27 trio and a Falcon crossover. I loved those speakers and they remained with me for some years. I'll bet that they would sound quite reasonable driven by quality modern electronics.

I am mindful of Marco's Celestion Ditton 66s, which he and others have been most impressed by. Perhaps the source-first system hierarchy prevails and many older speakers could surprise us today.

[hifi_dave]

I believe that Dave is using and enjoying a pair of BBC inspired Spendor BC2's, both with modern and vintage amps.

[DSJR]

Yep, have done for a few years now. They're not perfect by any means, but they don't boom like the BC1 could if used incorrectly and have come into their own with more modern setup and sources - and I knew these boxes when I sold them to a mate back in 1974.. The thing is, I can hear the family resemblance to current exponents of these old ideals and readily accept that the modern versions improve on mine in practically every aspect