2. speakers
  3. 194482-2248

How good is the crossover in your loudspeakers?

 

I just watched a Danny Richie YouTube video from three weeks ago (linked below). Danny is the owner/designer of GR Research, a company that caters to the DIY loudspeaker community. He designs and sells kits that contain the drivers and crossover schematics to his loudspeakers, to hi-fi enthusiasts who are willing and able to build their own enclosures (though he also has a few cabinet makers who will do it for you if you are willing to pay them to do so).

Danny has also designed crossovers for loudspeaker companies who lack his crossover design knowledge. In addition, he offers a service to consumers who, while liking some aspects of the sound of their loudspeakers, find some degree of fault in those loudspeakers, faults Danny offers to try to eliminate. Send Danny one of your loudspeakers, and he will free of charge do a complete evaluation of it's design. If his evaluation reveals design faults (almost always crossover related) he is able to cure, he offers a crossover upgrade kit as a product.

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. A reasonable accusation, were it not for the fact that---for instance---in this particular video (an examination of an Eggleston model) Danny makes Eggleston an offer to drop into the company headquarters and help them correct the glaring faults he found in the crossover design of the Eggleston loudspeaker a customer sent him.

Even if you are skeptical---ESPECIALLY if you are---why not give the video a viewing? Like the loudspeaker evaluation, it's free.

 

 

https://youtu.be/1wF-DEEXv64?si=tmd6JI3DFBq8GAjK&t=1

 

And for owners of other loudspeakers, there are a number of other GR Research videos in which other models are evaluated. 

 

 

bdp24

Showing 4 responses by texbychoice

texbychoice
160 posts
 

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.  

 

 

 

texbychoice
160 posts
 

@russbutton 

You provide an interesting alternative path that can work if one likes massive over-complication that introduces numerous paths to problems. Unless big bucks are spent, the number of cheap, wide tolerance, low reliability components increases at least 10 fold over a passive crossover.  If spending a few hundred to improve a passive crossover is unreasonable, the russbutton solution is insanely costly. 

@devinplombier 

If you want to pay $800 for an upgrade kit that consists of a few sheets of foam and $40 worth of Mouser components, go right ahead!

Completely uniformed claim that just proves you to be a hater.

 

 

texbychoice
160 posts
 

@devinplombier 

Like I said, a few sheets of foam and $40 worth of components. 

Like I said, uniformed hater. No knowledge and nothing to offer but nonsensical snark.

texbychoice
160 posts
 

@phusis 

Russbutton describes an active crossover providing signal to an amplifier for each driver.  For a three driver speaker, three separate amps required.  Six amps total for a typical 2 channel system.  That is increased complication. In no way is replacing a passive crossover with that an equal exchange. Numerous paths to problems include more connection points, more cabling, higher parts count=less reliable, multiple paths for EMI/RFI, matching amps to drivers, level adjustment for each driver to name a few.  The power transfer from amp to each driver is not vastly improved.  A passive crossover does not consume unreasonable power as has been implied either.

No doubt Class D amps will be recommended.  This recommended path is supposed to produce superior sound quality, right.  Six cheap Class D amps are the exact opposite of quality and reliability.  Better have a couple spares on hand at all times.

If an individual wishes to pursue active crossover, DSP, multiple amps, etc. that is just as acceptable as improving a passive crossover.  However, fact is the active path is not as simple or vastly superior as the claims made in this thread.  Pick your poison.

More to discover