Why do you need a speaker crossover - discuss

[BTH K10A]

I should also like to correct, or at least modify the view that the BBC tried to solve all the problems in the crossover. I'm not sure that's entirely true and although I haven't studied their research papers in depth, I'd respectfully suggest that the engineers of Harwood's time and before, really DID know exactly what they were doing, cared passionately about the end result but were hampered by the technology available at the time.

I would agree that the engineers at the BBC certainly knew what they were doing. It is important to remember that they were designing (voicing) speakers for their own specific applications such as outside broadcast monitoring etc. I doubt that they were ever intended to be marketed as domestic speakers but the licensed companies manufacturing them saw an opportinity.

I have owned some of the BBC derived speakers such as BC1'a, Studio 1a's and LS3/5's. The Studio 1a's gave the best all round performance but the little LS3/5's albeit bass limited, had an amazing soundstage if partnered with a good amp with lots of power. The Celestion SL6 range responds in a similar way. Anyway that's enough about BBC speakers. Who was it who introduced them into the discussion.

I currently use large JBLs which have more inductors than you can shake a stick at yet sound surprisingly good.



If you really want to go to town with crossovers, this is one found in one of the best speakers I've ever heard.



In reality good crossovers are expensive. They are not the ideal solution but better that individual drivers are correctly integrated with complementary roll off slopes and all working within their ideal parameters than something left to trial and error.

[Marco]

Lol - love it, Andy! That's a huge subliminal 'feck off' to the notion of any absolutes!

Marco.

[BTH K10A]

As you and I know Marco, when it comes to proper loudspeakers, size matters.

[Marco]

Yes indeed-io, daddy-o!!

Marco.

[jandl100]

.... 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. .....

A very good point, Martin, imo.

I've come across a few vintage speakers in my boxswapping saga that still have the baggage of criticism from when they were new models. Quacky mids, spitty treble, wallowy bass and the like.

For the life of me, I often cannot hear these faults when used with decent modern ancilliaries.

I do wonder if some of the original 'flaws' were in fact largely due to unsuitable partnering equipment of the time.

[Marco]

For the life of me, I often cannot hear these faults when used with decent modern ancilliaries.

I do wonder if the original 'flaws' were in fact largely due to unsuitable partnering equipment of the time.

Nail>head >BANG!



And that also applies to some other quality vintage gear......

Marco.

[Effem]

It has always been my belief that inexpensive speakers on the end of a top flight hi-fi system sounds better than an expensive speaker on the end of a budget system. I have heard some fairly mediocre speakers with flimsy cabinets and cheap drivers sound very nice when they were bullied into submission by a cracking good front end. Speakers with a modest power rating have produced some exceptional quality sound at high volumes, whereas all too often I have heard inefficient speakers being distorted by underpowered amps going into clipping.

I too agree that vintage speakers should be looked at again with modern electronics and probably why vintage speakers in particular are seeing increased resale prices on the secondhand market.

[Alan]

I absolutely agree with this, and in particular Jerry's point.

This can a bit hit & miss though, as the speakers were developed with the gear we now imply to be somehow lacking. If some vintage speakers are in fact better with decent modern ancillaries, it is partly down to quality, as Marco says, and also a large dose of luck - as the speakers will never have been heard before with the equipment we are partnering them with.

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

Well there is one absolute - anything that sits in the signal path or earth path or power supply feed interferes with the music.

OK before anyone says it again, obviously some things are essential otherwise you wouldn't have a system or music. But because everything interferes use the minimum to the maximum quality. Within a price, or price no object is the choice that creates different product and different price points, but not by adding complication.

So what is really necessary. Is a crossover part of this, my argument is that it is not as its work can be done largely mechanically without adding to the musical interference.

[nat8808]

Well there is one absolute - anything that sits in the signal path or earth path or power supply feed interferes with the music.

Is that an absolute or is just "common sense"?

I'd say common sense is normally just a factor of people's ingrained previous experience and not necessarily a 'truth' in the grander scheme of things. Physics is often less than common sense, quite often counter intuitive (based on common human experience anyway).

i.e. Perhaps there are possibilties where it doesn't effect the music in practice?

In my view absolutism should be challenged now and again to try and gain a more open-minded view point, even if tenuous, if just to provide less constraint to think out the box.

Can we also apply the no or minimal crossover aims over to non-cone based transducers like electrostic panels or ribbons without compromising their qualities more than an electronic cross-over would?