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.

Fixing problems that don’t exist, very expensively at that. You have to love high end audio.

@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.

BDP, you are kidding, right? You say, "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."

Well, let’s actually look at those lab tests, shall we? Here is the first and the dip in the crossover is clear as day, as mentioned.

https://www.stereophile.com/content/egglestonworks-andra-loudspeaker measurements-part-2

It is from 28 years ago. Is that how far you have to go back to find a poorly engineered speaker? 

Let’s look at another test:

https://www.stereophile.com/content/egglestonworks-viginti-loudspeaker-measurements

I fail to see the 12db hole you refer to, the windowed response being admirably flat. There is a room mode in the upper bass in Mr. Fremer’s room that causes a suckout, but as it is apparent in both the Wilson and Eggleston speakers it has to be a room mode. Please tell me where the issue is here. And this review, and speaker, are at least from the current century.

And here is the only other Eggleston review that I was able to find in Stereophile. If there are more, please direct me to them:

https://www.stereophile.com/content/egglestonworks-andra-ii-loudspeaker-measurements

Please point me to the 12db trough here. Response seems very smooth with a high Q 5db dip around 1K which fills in off-axis. I would simply say dont angle the speakers at the listening seat, listen off-axis.

And this stuff about Maggie and Klipsch using his mods really? 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. 

And I would go so far as to say if someone liked the sound of those first Eggleston speakers and purchased them, the sound did not change, so they would still enjoy them. For them, having enjoyed the speaker, it is a problem that does not exist and simply one of the design tradeoffs that was chosen in the voicing of the speakers. It might bother you, it would probably bother me, but neither of us has bought these speakers. I dont know folks that buy speakers that they dont like the sound of and then need have that bad sound remediated by crossover changes. It makes no sense on the face of it, but I am still trying to understand the problems in the other two lab tests.

This is a guy profiteering off of insecure audiophiles nothing more, and the disinformation is only being added to by the implication that all Stereophile lab tests of Eggleston speakers share these characteristics.

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. 

Agreed, this absolutely highlights the objectivist/subjectivist divide in the hobby, and I too would put him in the same camp as ASR. I don’t distrust loudspeaker evaluation, that is a red herring. I just linked three lab tests of speakers and discussed all three. Perhaps you missed that. But, on the other hand, I don't find a high correlation with my subjective opinions and lab tests, and that may come down to the contribution of the room, IMHO, and YMMV.

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 !!

When you say "average", are you speaking of the slopes used, their frequencies and the way that they integrate with the drivers, or solely parts quality? It is not clear from your post.

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

“Send Danny one of your loudspeakers, and he will free of charge do a complete evaluation of it’s design.”

Who’s in their right mind would do that!  It’s just not practical due to sheer weight / size. And, if I want Danny Richie to ‘voice’ or tweak my speakers, I might as well buy his speakers - not Frankenstein a third-party one into a GR Research hybrid.

This got to be the dumbest thing to do, no thank you!  

@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.