How good is the crossover in your loudspeakers?

I think the speaker should be allowed to have it's own characteristic sound set by the speaker designer. What if I like a speaker that's a little bright or enhanced midrange or strong bass?  Does it ALWAYS have to measure the same flat line as possible? I'm not on board with that.

There of course can be real problems that need correction in some speakers but a little tilt here or there may be what makes that speaker special.  

Number of considerations. System and room speaker being used in, the exact same speaker can have many voices. Changes such that freq response, phasing, impedance affected may or may not be a good thing. In the process of designing/voicing loudspeakers manufacturers limited in matching with equipment, rooms, and then we have designer or listening panel preferences. You better know exactly what defects you hear and the proper 'fix' for those defects before messing with crossover values. Replacing individual components such as capacitors, resistors, inductors with same values as original good way to go while mitigating the risks of changing design parameters.

@viridian +1

Mike

The above responses are not uncommon. Loudspeaker voicing, spectral and timbral characteristics, the basic sound of a loudspeaker company’s designs is understandable and to be expected. Richard Vandersteen has a sound he goes after, as did David Wilson. Everyone claims to be trying to achieve the "accurate" reproduction of acoustic instruments and voices, yet every designer makes a line of speakers that makes recordings sound different from that of other designers.

Danny Richie has addressed the above arguments (the term not used in it’s pejorative sense) in some of his other videos, and does so again in this one. His argument is: Would a designer think to himself "I know what would make for a good sounding loudspeaker; I’ll operate two drivers in such a way that they are out-of-phase at the crossover point where the output of the two drivers meet, the result of which is a 12dB hole in the loudspeaker’s frequency response?" Danny says "No, no loudspeaker designer thinks that."

If you look at John Atkinson’s measurements of the Eggleston models that have been reviewed in Stereophile, you will find the same "hole" in the frequency response Danny did when he measured the model a customer sent him. Is a frequency response hole (12dB down from the speaker’s midean output) a loudspeaker voicing choice, or a design fault? In this video Danny Richie gives you his opinion. You are of course free to disagree with it, and even like the sound of an Eggleston speaker.

I myself have never heard one, but I find the topic of loudspeaker crossover design an interesting and important one. Is a 12dB hole in a loudspeaker’s frequency response a "Problem that doesn’t exist"? The "corrections" Danny came up with for the Klipsch models sent him by customers have been incorporated into the Mk.2 iterations of those models by Klipsch themselves. The crossover ideas Danny suggested and offers for Magnepans are now offered in Magnepan’s own "X Series" upgraded versions of some of their models. Are the X Series versions a solution to a problem their standard versions don't have? Is Magnepan cynically catering to a gullibility they know some audiophiles fall for? C'mon, you know Magnepan better than that!  

@viridian 

Nailed it.

Viridian, 

Where’s all the vehemence coming from?  Danny Ritchie backs up all his statements with measurable evidence. Do you distrust the science of loudspeaker evaluation?  He has applauded good speaker performance, even from affordable brands like Polk Audio, and has found fault with some sacred cows. He shares many of our favorite beliefs…that parts quality matters, but his core values are based on solid principles that Floyd Toole would agree with. I put him in the objectivist camp with Amir and Erin, but with some voodoo allowed. 

Having rebuilt many loudspeakers the vast majority have Xovers that are average at best ,even speakers at $50 k 

look up Tony Gee humble homemade hifi capacitor test  most speakers capacitors are a 7-8  around 11 on up is very good most are not !!

He is a hater and a shill.  At best his kits offer small and likely inaudible improvements.

@bdp24  I am just curious. Has he ever found speakers sent to him that don’t need any modification? I am not sure I understand why he doesn’t manufacture his own brand and sell them. 

My main crossover is on Yamaha's website (NS-5000). 

The biggest issue I have with this approach is whether or not you wanted the speakers you bought to begin with.

If the answer is send it to Danny and have him fix it, you are better off buying a kit from Meniscus or Solen.ca or Madisound since these kits tend to have fewer starter problems to begin with.

The only times I really think an upgrade should be done is when the originals have a drop in impedance that can be fixed and keep the original intentions, which is actually do-able.  Older Genesis speakers and some Focals can be greatly improved this way.  Take a B&W 801 D2 though.  There’s a fantastic breakdown of how poorly the tweeter is integrated with the midwoofer... but then look at the fixes, it’s huge and leaves you with something that sounds very different than the 801 you bought in the first place.   The 801 is an extreme case, if it was me I’d 100% have thrown out the internal crossover and gone for an active setup instead, but damn those are expensive speakers to fix up.  

Sometimes it’s worth it for vintage speakers where the tastes of the time are now very different.  Troels Gravesen’s Yamaha NS1000 might be an example of that. 

@spenav: Yes, he has.

To be more specific, he has found some speakers with crossovers that need (iho) no "correction", but can be improved by using better parts (capacitors, resistors, inductors, coils, binding posts, wire, etc.) of the same electrical value. If you do a search through all the GR Research videos on YouTube, the title of some episodes gives a hint that the speaker under review met with his approval. He has praised the designs of Andrew Jones, for instance. There are some others, but yes they are in the minority. But remember, people send Danny their speaker because they themselves find fault in it. No owner of a Magico is going to do that!

In other cases he has advised the owner that the cost to "fix" their speaker is not cost effective, and they would be better off starting over.

As for manufacturing and selling his own, he does, in two forms:

1- As stated above, he sells loudspeaker kits (subs too) for DIY enthusiasts. He supplies the drivers and crossover parts, the customer builds the enclosure and assembles and installs the crossover. By the way, Rythmik Audio also offers their subs in both factory assembled and DIY kit versions. The plans for the F15HP enclosure call for a 4cu.ft. box, while the factory built version uses a 3cu.ft. one. You can build the enclosure in any manner you want,  as long as the internal volume is correct.

I built my pair of 4 cu.ft F15’s with double walls of MDF and Baltic Birch ply, and braced the Hell out of them (a 1.5" square brace every 6 inches, front-to-back, top-to-bottom, and side-to-side (I copied the honeycomb bracing in the Salk subs, which coincidentally used the Rythmik Audio sub kits inside Jim’s beautiful enclosures). Another fault Danny finds in most loudspeakers is insufficiently-braced enclosures. Tekton, anyone? 

2- Factory built loudspeakers and subs. Danny Richie and Brian Ding of Rythmik Audio collaborated on some subwoofers; GR Research sells the Rythmik Audio F12G, the G used in reference to the company name. The G version of the F12 incorporates a paper cone version of the 12" woofer, and Rythmik sells the plain F12, the cone of the same woofer being aluminum. Danny prefers the timbral character (and lower moving mass) of paper over aluminum, Brian the stiffness of aluminum.

GR Research sells only the F12G sub, while Rythmik Audio sells many other models. Danny and Brian collaborated on a remarkable model, the unique Open Baffle/Dipole/Servo-Feedback Woofer. THE sub for all dipole and planar loudspeakers. It was that sub that led me to GR Research.  

Danny has for a number of years now offered his speaker (and sub) kits as assembled and finished products, the work being done by a couple of cabinet makers he partners with. Those cabinet makers also offer the Danny Richie-designed enclosures (the plans for which come in the kit) the GR Research DIY kits require, selling them as "flat packs"---the enclosure baffle, top and bottom, rear and side panels packed in a carton. All that’s required are some woodworking clamps, wood glue, and paint or veneer. Not for your average audiophile, obviously. Not everyone is an @erik_squires. 

It is best to stay away from lousy speakers with serious design flaws in the first place....one can only put so much lipstick on a reeking pig.

I wonder why a crossover mod/upgrade to improve resolution, clarity, etc is the end of the world to some on this forum..i.e., if the baseline design is good to begin with, but, some compromises were made when built to a price point.

There are all kinds of guys rolling tubes, op amps, whatever...and no one bats an eyelid...the same principle should apply to crossover components. It should be very straight forward to keep the original crossover in storage and revert back to it, if needing to sell the damn speaker in its original state.

"Crossover rolling"...shouldn’t be a bad word.

Some make the case that Danny will of course find fault in the designs of others, in an attempt to sell you one of his loudspeaker kits.

Excellent post, @deep_333.

It is only in crossovers which produce poor driver phase relationships (or other technical problems) that Danny Richie does a x/o redesign. If he finds no such problem(s), he merely puts together a parts package that replicates the stock x/o, but with audiophile grade high end parts. He takes the stock crossover out of the speaker enclosure, showing all to see what it is comprised of. Watch a few of the videos, and you will see the proof that even many expensive speakers use poor quality parts in their crossovers. Iron core inductors, sandcast resistors, electrolytic capacitors, binding posts with ferrous parts, etc.

The X Series versions of some Magnepan models offer much the same crossover parts package as does Danny’s Magnepan upgrade kit. From the Magnepan site:

"The general idea of the X Series is to take the existing design of a given model and improve it..."

"How is that achieved exactly? Better capacitors. Better coils (inductors). Better resistors. Better wiring. Better connections. Better materials." These were all covered in Danny’s video on upgrading the Magnepan model send to him by a customer, and included in his upgrade kit.

Magnepan continues:

"Okay it’s better on paper, sure, but how does it sound? The short but truthful answer is that it sounds better! A lot better." 

Here’s one of Danny’s videos on the subject:

https://youtu.be/8IQ4t1Y1mxo?si=shhz3kYWZID3IX9f&t=1

There was a recent thread where the owner of this Eggleston loudspeaker asked what he should do after viewing the Richie video.  I asked him if he actually hears "the hole" and his answer was no, he's never heard it.  The original Stereophile review addresses the issue with setup suggestions.  Basically, it's a loudspeaker you should listen to off axis in a moderate to large sized room.

I believe in good quality component parts, and, good measurements to understand what is going on. I’m a licensed amateur radio enthusiast, and, have a background in automobile NVH testing for sound and vibration, for 35 years.

I’ve built many Heathkit projects back in the day, understanding electronics and components are one of my hobby passions. I have a pair of Klipsch RP8000f’s, which are towers, and a RP504C center. A few years ago I decided to upgrade the crossovers from GR Research, A very fun (for me) project. I can assure you, the quality of parts from GR Research is on another level from the stock parts. Plus, in these particular speakers, the data measurements clearly show they needed help.

There are many other contributors in listening to a system, amp, preamp/processor, cabling, room size, room acoustics, etc... So, my feeling is, when one decides to look at data, and decide to try a new speaker crossover, please take into consideration if your system is capable of resolving the change.

My most recent speakers, MoFi SourcePoint 888’s for L/R, and MoFo Sourcepoint 8 for center. No one has sent in an 888 yet, but someone has sent in an 8. The original designer of these speakers, Andrew Jones, is well known as a speaker designer, and highly respected. Danny’s measurement on the 8 clearly shows the speaker and crossover were designed correctly, but just to a price point. Other than upgrading the parts quality and making a small change to take care of a huge impedance rise, not much needed to be changed.

If you care to take a look at the MoFi 8 crossover upgrade video.

Danny Tackles Andrews Jones: The Source Point 8! Spoiler Alert (It’s Really Good)

The first time I watched one of Danny’s videos I agreed with a lot of his views on parts quality and general speaker principals.  He’s always struck me as calling it like he sees it.  He’s says positive things where applicable, and points out problems as he sees them.   I have no doubt that the problems he points out can ruffle the tail feathers of many who are fans of speakers he finds issue with, but I’ve known for a long time that speakers built to a price point by companies whose primary focus is profit have some subpar components and construction.  

His upgrades can be expensive, but so is a $20 cheeseburger...that’s the world we live in.  I’ve read a lot of raves from people who’ve tried his upgrades.  Upgrading low quality parts  is logical, and I’ve done it many times.  The difference in sound quality is a variable and is subjective, but it’s typically a step in the right direction, if cleaning  up the signal path of your system is an objective. 

Going along with what I mentioned before, the Kef Reference 1 Meta bookshelves are probably a fantastic opportunity for a crossover rethink based on the impedance plots. 

That speaker may do a lot better with a wider variety of amplifiers than it does now without any significant downgrades.  At least that’s my suspicion without having one to disassemble.

Anyone want to loan me theirs??

I had a system where I eliminated the passive crossovers and replaced them with a digital crossover, The biggest improvement I have heard over my 30 years doing this. Passive crossovers are using energy from the signal to create the crossover, I don't see how that can ever work accurately.

There are a few different things going on here. 

1. Most speakers comes crap crossovers. Even with higher end speakers, there are compromises with the crossovers. Any company will skimp on parts for profit. Putting in higher end parts of the same values will give you much better sound. As everything audio, there is a point of diminishing returns. Replacing a $1 cap, with a $20 cap will be a night and day difference. 

2. Danny has his own view of "perfect" sound. His goal is to always have a pan flat response. He tunes everything to get that.

3. Danny's kits re expensive, and offer mid-grade parts. He also rinse and repeats most of his kits. He is the place to purchase "No-rez" dampening, so it's in every kit. Along with his tube connectors for speaker wire.  Again, high priced stuff that is more mid-range. 

4. Yes, some of the stuff he is done, the manufacture has noticed and incorporated some of it in the later design. Why not? They get almost free R&D.

Almost any component we purchase some kind of compromise in it to reach a price point. Most of the time, replacing the lower end part with a higher end part will produce better results. This is why we purchase expensive power cables, speaker cables, etc...

I had ALK. create his extreme slope for my LaScala bass bins, with Altec 311-60 horns with Altec 902T drivers & Fostex T925A Top Mount Horn Super Tweeter. Before I eliminated the top end of the speakers, They did a better job then the original ''Klipsch" network. Cleaner & more open sound. With his attenuators, I can dial in almost any driver for the mids & highs.

Well worth the extra bucks. 

It sounds like the majority of speakers Danny says need improvement are on the lower end of the spectrum. I certainly will NOT be sending him one of my Rockport Avior ii speakers to check out. 

I upgraded my SVS bookshelf speakers' Xovers with the GR Research mod and they sound much better. 

Pretty happy with the designers approach here.  No second guessing parts quality when they're on display. Even P. Noerbaeck's DIY kits, from Madisound, offer the same level of engineering. 

@gtscott wrote:

I had a system where I eliminated the passive crossovers and replaced them with a digital crossover, The biggest improvement I have heard over my 30 years doing this. Passive crossovers are using energy from the signal to create the crossover, I don't see how that can ever work accurately.

+1 

Mine is the best there is............no crossover at all.....wilson benesch speakers

Crossovers are deductive. when you see those large crossovers with all the caps and coils you know you are losing music and it ain't coming back 

The mid-horn in my Avantgarde Duo has no crossover and is connected directly to the Lamm ML2 SET amps. It is wonderfully transparent, on par with my now antique Quad Loudspeakers (which I've owned since 1974 and had Kent McCollum refurbish several years ago), with none of the well-known limitations of the Quad.

I do have a Danny Richie woofer in a 12 inch Rythmik sealed subwoofer that was done in gloss black. I experimented with it in my main system and eventually moved it to our small home theater set up, adding a pair of 15" Rhythmik subs to the main system which I DSP'd externally. These blend wonderfully with the horn set up, something that isn't easy to do-- like trying to subwoofer electrostats (which I did back in the dark ages). 

The DSP is confined to the subwoofer system-- which is fed from a separate "line out" on my line stage. The Duos run full range, (yes, there is a crossover in the tweeter, and one for the integrated woofer, but it is tuned for coherence with the mid-horn, letting the Rythmiks do the heavy lifting on deep bass). Best this particular system has ever sounded with a few other changes, in a longer room with a different acoustic than my previous room in NY. System typically puts a smile on the face playing bog standard older vinyl LPs- not "audiophile" records. 

Passive crossovers are using energy from the signal to create the crossover, I don't see how that can ever work accurately.

@gtscott  - Only when well engineered.  You do make a good point that they are always subtractive, but when done correctly they can be just as accurate as active.  People who rip out passive crossovers and just start picking crossover slopes willy nilly do not end up with better products just because they switched. 

I’ve watched Danny’s videos over the years and I find them entertaining and interesting.  Danny is also a big believer in upgrading speaker cables and power cables from what I’ve seen.  I watch and read the transcript while I happily listen to my system.  Whatever floats your boat in this hobby.  

The crossover can be used to modify flaws in the drivers’ response curves, or tailor the sound to the room/individual’s taste and so can be better than having no crossover at all.  It all depends on the drivers chosen to do the job and what is expected of them.

And, different caps can/do sound different from other caps, even the conjugate caps.

There is basically nothing new in crossover design, no doubt, as time went on these manufacturers refined their crossovers, just as we can see that Eggleston did. It’s a natural progression. 

If there is truly nothing new in crossover design, why is refinement over time required.  A natural progression is required to get it right when there is nothing new. Makes no sense.

If one has never tried a better quality parts crossover, then just hot air driven opinion of good or bad.  An informed opinion would be based on trying better quality parts.  Fine if that did not suit the listener's taste.  

When Danny specifies "No Rez" for Klipsch speakers bad things happen.

lalitk no it is not so expensive to send speakers and well worth it to get the review and opinion as to whether it can be upgraded i have sent several speakers to him ( you only need to send ONE ! )  and enjoyed the collaboration and the project ! all were rendered listenable even the cheap speakers i sent ! it changed them into speakers i would keep, listen to and recomend it was project a fun one ! 
 

travelinjack

233 posts

05-18-2025 at 07:12pm 

"He is a hater and a shill.  At best his kits offer small and likely inaudible improvements." 
noone would do it if it was "small and likely inaudible improvements." an absurd comment and illogical 
OH SO negative ! you have not done any research on him and read any reviews ! 
er NO you sound like the hater! and he is no shill i have worked w/ him on several projects and the speakers had dramatic improvements NOW they were worth keeping and listening to! even cheap speakers !  
I think you have no idea how cheap the parts in many speakers are! some speakers even expensive ones have NO crossover only a couple caps to protect the tweeter or mid and they are running them as essentially Full range speakers! so even a modest price crossover yields DRAMATIC results! I have seen , heard it ! 
IF you were objective and fair you would listen to the before and after and watch some of the videos! ,but you are not are you ? so not worth it wasting breath to refute you really ! sad .

@ned1000    
I am not negative about him. I just asked questions. For years I have used Audience 1+1 speakers especially because they have no crossover. My ears are sensitive to the negative effects of crossovers. Before that I used a Marchant active crossover. I couldn’t enjoy my then speakers with the built in network. Now I am using Raidho td1.2 and am happy with their crossover. I think this gentleman is doing a good job. I don’t think I need his service at this time though. Have a nice weekend. 

Like some others here, my current main loudspeaker---the Eminent Technology LFT-8b---employs a midrange driver (a push-pull planar-magnetic design) with no crossover in it’s passband: 180Hz to 10kHz, with 1st-order (6dB/octave) high and low-pass filters at those frequencies, handing off to a sealed dynamic woofer for frequencies below 180Hz and a ribbon tweeter for 10kHz up.

For those who want improved bass response, the Rythmik Audio/GR Research Open Baffle/Dipole Servo-Feedback Woofer (unlike all "normal" subs, it may be used up to 300Hz) may be used in place of the LFT-8b’s stock woofer (the LFT-8b includes dual pairs of binding posts, one for the woofer). Magnepan has been working on their own dipole subwoofer for a few years now (Wendell Diller has long insisted that non-dipole subs "Do not work"---Wendell’s exact words---with a dipole loudspeaker). Magnepan owners: no need to wait for it!

The OB/Dipole Woofer includes a plate amp that provides all the controls the Eminent Technology LFT-8c does (the 8c uses the same planar magnet-drivers as does the 8b, but a dipole---though non-open baffle---woofer in place of the 8b’s monopole), but operates in the analogue domain. The 8c operates digitally.

I had a set of very nice speakers that were also offered in a "reference" edition (for an additional $900.) Curious about upgrading them, I spoke with the manufacturer who advised on the components, and I replaced the caps and resistors with parts costing $450; these were the same brands as the ones int he upgraded model but much higher in quality. I didn't hear a significant difference. 

And then there's Wilson Benesch who run their midrange directly coupled to the amp, i.e., no crossover, and use primarily first order electronic crossovers or acoustic crossovers. 

The best crossover is no crossover, followed by an acoustic crossover. 

KISS

My biggest issue with Danny is that he offers "better" kits. I'm no resistors guru, but they, caps, and coils actually do make differences, often significant differences. That said, he uses okay caps. Sonicaps are bettered by many others. Some ClarityCaps are much better, not to mention Myflex and V-Cap ODAMs. Were I running the business it probably would never have gotten off the ground, but I would offer good, better, best as Radio Shack did for several decades.

Having said all of that, one suggested leaving speakers stock. Remember, all audio is personal. I know a fellow who has serious loss of high frequencies. If it doesn't send me out of the room covering my ears it just doesn't sound good to him. 

So, if you are content, ignore and enjoy. If not, see if Danny can hook you up. If not, you can go lone ranger, and depending upon your skill set, and test setup, you may better Danny's kits. My son recently purchased a speaker. I looked at the crossover and suggested 3 solutions, all of them included Mills resistors, I am not a resistors guru. The good included ClarityCap MR MPK caps. Better used ClarityCap CMR MPK caps, while the best and by far the most expensive used V-Cap ODAMs. My insane cap upgrades include ODAMs bypassed with V-Cap CuTF caps for slightly improved highs. 

The bottom line though is that truly bright is going to be right for some. IME many consider transparent or neutral to be bright, and many consider "warm" to be dull. What "others" consider is right should only influence you if you are building the system to please others, which you'll likely never do if they are the least bit selective in their listening. So, try to build a system that you believe that you will enjoy. Don't worry about pleasing others. Where music is concerned, tastes just differ.

I believe Danny will substitute an individual's choice of caps for the Sonicaps, recently saw one of his videos with Duelund CAST caps loaded on crossover.  Physical space limitations are generally the greatest issue with using the best of best film caps, Sonicaps much smaller footprint, this, as well as cost likely the reason they seem to be de facto replacement cap.

I ripped out my passive crossovers in my Magnepan 20.1 and have an active crossover from Danville Signal Processing using the DSP Nexus 2x8 and apply room correction and time alignment via 12 biquads per channel. The results are stunning. Why bother with the passive components at all when you can do it digitally processing all 8 channels at 192kHz/24bit and get all the power of the amps directly into the speakers. It’s simply fantastic. 
 

Thanks,

Steve

The thing that Danny Ritchie loves best is Danny Ritchie and far too many believe him.  But it sells, so bully for him.  Of course nobody here seems to remember that the best crossover is an active crossover.

Here's WHY active crossovers are so very much better than passive. A single loudspeaker driver is an inductor, and provides a frequency dependent, reactive load to an amplifier. Looking at the image here, the blue line on the bottom is the frequency dependent impedance curve for an SB Acoustics SB29RDAC Ring Dome Tweeter, and it typical of any dynamic tweeter. As you can see, it is anything but flat, yet it is listed as having a 4 ohm impedance. It's 4 ohms at about 1200 hz, but at 600 hz, has an impedance of nearly 10 ohms.

Now if you put a passive crossover circuit in front of it, you add capacitors, resistors and inductors, which then give you a frequency dependent impedance curve which looks like a Coney Island roller coaster. And that's just for a tweeter high-pass circuit.

Now when you add in mid and bass drivers, with high and low pass filters there... It's a real mess. But we're not done there yet. Nope. Many of your extreme hi-end loudspeakers add in equalization to their crossover designs, which makes that impedance curve even worse. This is very hard for an amp to properly manage. That's why people drop many, many thousands of dollars on things like Krell, Threshhold, Bryston, or Rowland Research solid state power amps.

Now when you use an active crossover, an amp channel only has to manage a single driver. There's no passive, reactive component in between the amp and the loudspeaker driver. Then you don't need a megabuck amp to deal with it.

Many of the best pro studio monitors are powered, with active crossovers and multiple amp channels.  All of the Linkwitz loudspeaker designs use active crossovers. His  designs have used both analog and digital crossovers. There are some digital crossovers that offer DSP EQ, which allows you to tailor the total system response for the room you are in. Then you're not just limited to whatever sound your speakers give you in the room you're stuck with.

The lowest cost active crossovers are typically pro grade, from manufacturers like Behringer, dbx, Rane or even Nady. There are many manufacturers. Some of the best known home audio digital crossovers are from miniDSP.  Even a Behringer active crossover is far superior to any passive crossover.

Another major benefit is that you can use much, much lower powered amps when you use active crossovers. A lot of power is wasted having to push through a passive crossover. You really don't need to push many watts into a tweeter or mid-range driver to get a lot of level out. You could even run a single ended tube amp on your tweeter, and a mid-level tube power amp on your mid-range driver, and a solid state amp for the bass driver. You have a lot of options.
 

@russbutton. Nailed it. Thank you. 

Mike