Any advantage to an outboard crossover box?

Karl:
Well, I'm not objective because I think they are great! The beauty of the external mount is that you can tweak it after the fact so easily. Northcreek has a page, as I am sure you know, that explains how to make simple tweeks simply by adding series resistance in the high end or cutting it out for the mids.

I make a few speakers myself and have modeled them on NC. I have a lot of respect for George Short.

I have never heard the top of the line Rhythm Signature but I am sure its great. I do not have much direct experience with the Scan Speak 9900/Revelator tweeter and actually prefer the 9500 myself but that is a personal thing.

They make the best crossovers too! I have poked my head in a lot of fairly expensive speakers and you generally don't find the quality until you reach 5 figures and often way beyond that.

Make sure you get the drivers matched as perfect pairs.

Good choice

Sincerely, I remain

karl: tannoy churchills have outbord xovers, as did my previously-owned avalon ascents (current sentinels also have outboard units, as i recall). there are two primary advantages that i'm aware of with such a setup. first, it reduces vibrations from the active units/box. second, it reduces the weight of the speakers, making them easier to setup and move. -kelly

I have built two diferent sets of Rhythm's the original ones with the 9500 tweeters and a set of Signatures. Both have the external X-overs. I have also built a center channel Signature that has the x-over insided and it just doesn't sound as open. There are alot of variables with the center channel verses the other speakers but I do believe you will get better results with an external crossover.
PS, I much prefer the sound of the Revelator tweeter over the 9500, jsut goes to show personal preferences.

Karl,
I have the NCMS Rhythm Revelator w/.5 dB matched drivers & external XO. I absolutely love them! Could not be happier. The XO's have always been external, so I can't answer your question from an empirical comparison perspective. The primary reason for the sonic improvement, as I see it, is that the external XO doesn't get the mechanical thrashing from the drivers that the internal one does.

I have listened to prototype speakers being compared on the internal/external XO basis. The external won hands down. It was much less "congested" sounding, and dynamics and harmonic texture benefited too. I know you can turn a $1599 kit into a $2000 kit with a bunch of "options," (the external XO adds posts–mine are bi-wired from the get go–,extra cable, & enclosures for the XOs) but if I were you I wouldn't think twice about it. The advantages are very audible and real, and very worth the money.

I'd go with the Revelator before the Unlimited. I'm certain that the latter is a very, very fine speaker, but, IMHO, the Revelator sounds even better.

Last but not least, if I were to do it over again I'd just get the Signature. I really don't have a single complaint about the Revelator, but if there's an improvement to be had I'd pay a few extra bucks.

Let us know how you like those Taylor enclosures. I've got some home brews. They look pretty darn good, but not perfect. I'm always toying with the idea of buying some of Taylor's. If anyone out there wants some inexpensive (like materials cost) "starter" enclosures for the Rhythm let me know. We may very well be able to work something out.

BTW, I have a balanced DS Pro Gen Va with 24/96 upgrade & I'm getting some Pythons for comparison to the 89259/89248 combo. We may have somewhat similar sounding setups.

I'd be into making the cabinets myself if I had any woodworking skills. The idea of learning to do it as I went along might work if it weren't such an important project. I'll leave the creation on my main speakers to a skilled person.

Thanks for the above comments. I will let you know about the Signature experience.

-Karl