Just as a point of reference -- there was a recent thread regarding ATC monitors where the ATC distributor stated that the active versions were superior to the passive versions. Yet several ATC owners stated that they strongly preferred the passive versions. Their consensus was the passives were more emotionally satisfying. Go figure.
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.
174 responses Add your response
@russbutton Awesome detail, I wish more people understood how critical it is to learn how to use and active crossover to get the best out of the music, speakers, amps, and the room. I was an early adopter of the dspNexus from Danville Signal Processing and it is the first DSP to operate 8 channels at 192kHz/24bit and you can custom design the crossover with Audio Weaver. Design it to be as simple or as complicated as you like such as any traditional slope or go crazy with biquads like me generated through Room EQ Wizard and Multi Sub Optimizer. thanks, Steve |
@bdp24, my condolences. You are a brave chap attacking peoples' cheapo crossovers! What nerve? March onwards with the torch held high. Why the Danny haters? Except for the uber expensive just about every XO can be improved. The parts quality can almost always be improved and there are those who will argue that a cap can not improve the sound and if it measures to spec and voltage rating it's good enough, don't fix summin that ain't broke. To those I say, you are quite right, no cap can improve the sound but I choose caps that do less damage. All components will degrade the sound. An example: I built a pair of Zigmahornets that use the little fostex FE103 full range speaker. Zero XO but had no bass, it's only about 4". Can't get more bass so I tamed the mids down with a parallel coil, cap and resistor in one leg. This is not a XO as such just merely knocking the mids and top end down a little and did indeed provide more 'apparent bass' but it was soon tossed out because it killed the life of the otherwise great little thing. That's what components do. Take the much vaunted LS3/5A BBC monitor with 2 dozen components to force the response to be smooth but to exhibit the famous/notorious BBC 'smile' so a little tilted up in the bass and top end, hence the smile. These were engineered for mobile recording studios where the speakers were about a foot from their face. I just hear them as dynamically constipated. I design speakers and place importance on accurate phase tracking at XO and if the drive units are chosen carefully with smooth roll off out of band then a simple XO will work and work well without excessive editorialization. Some manufacturers boast about how they have with many components achieved a flat response but get them home and the measured in-room response is anything but flat! One of the worst offenders is the ubiquitous sand cast resistor, most of them with magnetic ends. Now if you don't believe that a resistor can change sound for the worse then here is a cheap experiment: Cheap experiment: Most tweeters have an attenuation resistor in series ranging from 2 to 10 ohms, it doesn't matter. Lets say it is 4.7ohms, remove it and replace it with a string of 10 white abominations of 0.47 ohms soldered in series = 4.7 ohms, right? How do things sound now? But, but, but, yeah now you sound like a cheap Chinese two-stroke:
|
Most Xovers are not That great , even in some $$ speakers . danny Ritchie uses parts quality a bit better then average as a rule unless you pay for Copper foil capacitors or top Jantzen Copper foil waxed inductors and resistor upgrade as well as internal wiring and WBT connectors go to Humble homemade hifi capacitor test , then see what is inside yours. most have Solen or the cheaper Mundorf Evo capacitors ,their Supreme are thier good ones, many options to improve resolution in your loudspeakers Xover. |
| Post removed |
A good number of hardcore Maggie owners tear into the crossovers that Magnepan installs in their speakers, especially the guys who frequent the Planar Speaker Asylum. One easy mod is to replace the stock binding posts with ones from Cardas; the Cardas posts fit in the stock holes with no problem. While they have the back plate off the speaker, they bypass the fuse block (it contains parts made of ferrous material!), which may easily be accomplished by simply moving the round tin connector on the end of the internal connecting wire from the fuse block to the binding post, no soldering required. Of course soldering the wires onto the posts is even better. The crossovers in most loudspeakers contain compensatory parts---parts needed to deal with problems inherent in the speaker’s drivers. Maggies don’t; Magnepan crossovers are simple "textbook’ filters (1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th-order. That’s 6, 12, 18, or 24 db/octave). Owners of earlier Maggies (X1.6)---which have parallel crossovers (X1.7’s have series crossovers)---have the great option of bi-amping their speakers. Hook up the output of your pre-amp to the crossover, and use one amp for the woofer, another for the midrange/tweeter drivers. I have a pair of Magnepan Tympani T-IVa (the precursor to the current 30.7), which came with an external crossover. But it is inserted between a single power amp and the Tympani’s, one of the crossover’s output jacks going to the two separate bass panels, the second set of outputs to the midrange/tweeter panel. That crossover contains two filters: a 3rd-order low pass at 250 Hz, and a 2nd-order high pass at 400 Hz. Running the Tympani’s in this manner is of course not bi-amping, and ignores one of the main benefits of bi-amping: removing bass frequencies from the signal the midrange/tweeter amp "sees." Removing them allows for more power to be available to the midrange/tweeter drivers (bass frequencies use up most of an amp’s output capability), and with lower distortion (thanks again to those darn bass frequencies). In the Tympani owners manual, Magnepan actually encourages owners to bi-amp their speakers, using an active crossover. I have the great little active crossover First Watt used to offer, the B4 (get it? By the way, Magnepan offers their flagship model---the aforementioned 30.7---in both Standard and "X" Series versions. Rather than spending the money on the upgraded version, I would instead choose to spend it on a good quality external crossover and second power amp. Unfortunately, the 30.7 contains a series crossover, not a parallel one. So to bi-amp it one must perform internal surgery. Not for the faint-of-heart! Not a problem with the Tympani’s---they all had parallel crossovers. In 1973 I bi-amped my first Maggies---the original Tympani T-I---with an ARC passive x/o and two ARC amps.
|
exactly even the $26K willson watt pupies were totally flawed watch this be amazed! ( he fixes them! ) |
The link @ned1000 posted above is the second video of a 2-part series Danny Richie made on the pair of Wilson Audio Watt/Puppy Series 8 loudspeakers a customer sent him.
Here’s part 1: https://youtu.be/Tma9jFZ3-3k?si=nJTc2qlLVhmK3WVR
And here’s part 2: https://youtu.be/pIt2pcQvf6M?si=RzZbPLKteA4DqhaZ
I imagine there may be a fair number of negative responses to what Danny has to say in the videos. All the usual arguments against Danny, with the added factor of Wilson being such a revered brand. All I can say is: I don’t consider it a given that David Wilson or his son are better loudspeaker designers than Danny Richie. In my opinion these two videos actually make the case for the exact opposite. You are of course free to disagree. You may not be aware of the fact that Steven Stone gave GR Research "The Best Sound Cost No Object" award at the 2013 Rocky Mountain Audio Fest in The Absolute Sound. In one of the two videos above Danny talks about the sound he heard in the Wilson Audio room at RMAF.
|
Randy is completely divorced from realty (ignore the stuffed ‘ugly’ cat).
|
Being one who has "hot rodded" speakers for several decades (including earning a patent for my own design): It is impossible to describe the before/after results of "upgrades" unless you strap yourself down in front of the speakers and actually listened to them. Even those with excellent command of vocabulary, and engineering degrees can't fully encapsulate the sonic benefits of "doing it better." My goal is never to "paint a mustache on the Mona Lisa", but rather respect the intent of the original designer who, perhaps, would have benefited from being free from production considerations, ease of in field service, time and budget constraints. And, of course, newer materials and newer "thinking" that were not around when the speaker was developed in many cases. Not long ago, I saw a promotional video of a well-respected high-end manufacturer introducing their new "flagship" model, highlighting the assembly process. A pair of good $30 side cutters and a roll of silver solder would have immediately improved the focus and detail, while reducing the harshness of the upper midrange As I stated before: "production efficiency, and ease of service in the field." Price: over $40k/pair. We perform mods on speakers in various price ranges, including vintage speakers. I am still surprised (often stunned) just how much music you can get out of these boxes via cheap and/or vintage drivers when you get things out of way that make them sound worse -- or just open them up, and let them play. |
As pertains to the desirability of attaining flat freq. response the videos @lalitk refers to are informative. So, guy designs his speakers to measure exactly to his liking, result is nothing close to flat freq. response, the chances that others will find pleasant sound quality with these in great doubt. While subjectivity certainly plays a role in speaker design, one needs to start with good objective engineering. Flat freq. response, proper phase, impedance curves, etc. Dannie finds fault with subjectively designed speakers, applies objectively determined optimizations. I presume some like their subjectively designed speakers since their preferences align exactly with designer. Still, for most, having properly engineered speakers should be foundational, you can tune to your heart's delight with sympathetic component matching, room treatments, etc.
|
@waytoomuchstuff Wrote:
JBL measured the frequency response of my speakers @ 1 watt @ 10 watts and @ 100 watts and they have <1 dB compression of SPL output. See speaker specifications here last page. Mike |
"JBL measured the frequency response of my speakers @ 1 watt @ 10 watts and @ 100 watts and they have <1 dB compression of SPL output. See speaker specifications here last page. That's excellent! JBL is noted for this. Along with their uniform off axis response. Not always the case with other brands. |
"JBL measured the frequency response of my speakers @ 1 watt @ 10 watts and @ 100 watts and they have <1 dB compression of SPL output. See speaker specifications here last page. Mike"
I don’t think this means what you think it means.
I think what is referred to is the power linearity over the frequency response and they show plots of the response for the three power levels and look at the response to see that it does not so as to throw the curve off by more than 1 dB. Otherwise, why are the three curves not 10 dB apart for the three power levels? OTOH, I would think that depending on the "compatibility" of the components, lesser speakers would show far more "areas" of compression because some components just can't "keep up" with others when the going gets tough.
They say they are 10 dB apart, but that would infer NO compression and that’s just not the case.
|
BTW, JBL does note the dynamic compression for a 2226H at 1.5 dB between 1 watt and 100 watts. The 2226H uses the vented gap technology, same as my 2241H, and JBL notes that this measure was instituted to reduce the power compression. "JBL introduced the VGC products in an effort to reduce dynamic compression to even lower degrees and increase general power handling in the process. Figure 7 shows 1 watt and 100 watt superimposed compression curves for the JBL 2226H The curves show compression on the order of 1.5 dB over the range from 100 Hz to about 2 kHz, with virtually no compression at lower frequencies." Based on this, one would expect the 2234/2235 to exhibit more compression than the 2226H, though none of the literature states what it is. |
@toddalin wrote:
Naturally the 3 curves for each their power levels are superimposed to easily show the difference power compression makes at higher SPL’s. It shows the 4435’s with dual woofers per cab have close to no power compression up to 100W, and both models show virtually no signs of power compression above 500Hz with 100W input.
The JBL’s of this segment perform admirably compared to most any typical, lower efficiency hifi speakers, and I have little doubt JBL can actually be trusted with their measured performance here. These speakers are meant to be used in a pro environment where these things matter.
There are variances, as can be clearly seen, not least below 500Hz with the 4430’s, albeit not much. We’re talking 4" voice coil, pole piece vented woofers of pro origin with 93/96dB sensitivity, and very high eff. compression drivers above. Such drivers are more resilient to compression issues.
With 100W input close to no power compression isn’t implausible with the 4430/4435’s and their non-VGC woofers. VGC makes a difference, yes, but this becomes more prevalent - i.e.: handy with close to max. outputs above 100W input with cinema and PA usage. By comparison the JBL monitors won’t be sitting that close to their performance ceilings. |
For those who are truly interested, here is Danny Richie’s response to Andrew Robinson’s video regarding crossovers. The clips from Robinson’s related videos simply reveal that he (and his off-camera wife/girlfriend) is not a serious audiophile, and is in no way qualified to be considered a hi-fi reviewer/critic. IMO, as always.
https://youtu.be/OSCMw-lGwok?si=VX39SlTp3XRfN_0-
|
Danny Richie is certainly a polarizing figure. I think that is his objective. After all Danny is in the business to make money. Danny gets well know speakers that have been in the wild for 20 plus years and measures them. Making claims that the designers are incompetent. I am sure some of the components have deteriorated or drifted. Also, manufacturing has gotten much better. Components are held to tighter tolerances and measuring equipment has gotten much better. Out of curiosity does Danny measure these speakers in an Anechoic chamber? I always take someone says with a grain of salt when the next words out of their mouth is for X amount of money I can make your unit sound better. If you believe in Danny, good for you. If you do not then that is your right! I think the high end community can survive. |
@chuck: Your question of "does Danny measure these speakers in an anechoic chamber?" suggests that you have not actually watched many of his videos. If you had, you would know the answer to that question. You make an argument against Danny by theorizing "I am sure some of the components have deteriorated or drifted. Also, manufacturing has gotten much better. Components are held to tighter tolerances and measuring equipment has gotten much better." These are what we call specious arguments., the answers to which dispel your theories. Have you watched the video I just posted above? You really should, it’s full of a lot of accumulated speaker design wisdom. If you haven’t watched it, your opinion is of limited credibility and gravitas. IMO. It’s not a question of whether or not a person "believes in Danny", but rather if what he says holds up to serious scrutiny. We are all free to make that assessment for ourselves.
|
| Post removed |
JBL is talking about the whole system’s freedom from the effects of compression, not just the woofer. Also, the JBL 2234/2235/2245 are designed for studio monitor play back while the JBL 2226H/JBL 2241H are designed for PA system’s. ’’Power compression vs level is plotted in Figure I0. As the power levels were increased the chart--recorder gain was decreased a like amount. The degree to which the curves coincide shows the system’s freedom from the effects of compression. These curves were run using a narrow band tracking filter. The purpose of this tracking filter is to remove distortion components, which would otherwise influence the shape of these compression curves. As presented here, the compression curves reflect only the fundamental frequencies at each power level. Conventional distortion curves are also shown in Figure ll’’ See here page #5. Mike |
Danny is Danny, at least we learn something from what he is saying, get a better understanding on how speakers work. Almost every speaker I have torn into has had cheap, or really cheap crossover parts. Even some more expensive speakers still have crap parts in them. These will sound better with better parts. Even changing the sand cast resistors for higher quality ones will have a affect on sound. High quality parts are stupid expensive, and sometimes HUGE. Will a $2000 speaker sounds better with a $2000 crossover? yes, it will, but is it worth it? With old speakers that caps have drifted, or going bad, just about any cap replacement will sound much better. You can do a full recap on a pair of speaker for under $100 the before/after will be huge! Sonic Caps are good, but they are bright, sometimes harsh, can be clinical. Not all vintage speakers respond to these kind of caps well. They can loose their warmth, smoothness. IMHO, I will not use them in the tweeter circuit. They can make good speakers become fatigueing speakers. |
+1 @mswale
|
The crossover is in my speakers are good enough so that they sound amazing! I’m using Joseph audio perspective 2s and Thiel 2.7s. There’s always been a certain section of audiophiles who believe “ the less parts the better.” But that just doesn’t seem to be sound engineering principles. I’ve heard things like “ lots of parts in crossover obscure the sound and also drain energy and dynamics.” I found that to be clearly untrue decades ago whenever I heard, and eventually owned, Thiel speakers. They have notoriously complex crossovers with lots of parts in order to achieve gym, attempt at time and face coherence along with flat frequency response. Do the Thiels lack detail, clarity, imaging focus, dynamics or energy? Hell, no! Those are all strengths of the Thiels! They have always been among the most clear, focused, detailed, and dynamically lively non-horn speakers that I’ve heard.
|
@mswale if you are posting about sonicaps, I think it depends on the speakers you are using them in, I haven’t found them to sound bright whatsoever, especially compared to clarity caps. |
A friend and I used to have a bit of a "cottage industry" upgrading crossovers in vintage, and not so vintage speakers. This was back in the late 90’s and 00’s. Even if the speakers were engineered well (reasonably flat response, no major phase issues at the crossover between drivers, etc), upgrading crossover components, i.e., better caps, replace iron core inductors, replace sand cast resistors. This was at least 2 decades before Danny’s videos and upgrade kits. We also added bracing when needed Our findings were almost exactly what Danny has found. I also believe there are certain aspects of speaker design and implementation, that are not a matter of "voicing". If there is a hole in the response, especially if it is at the crossover point, that is simply bad engineering. If the spectral decay plot shows stored energy, that is distortion, and a sign of poor design and implementation. My friend and I didn’t have the ability to do spectral decays when we were upgrading speakers, but we could easily hear the improvement after we added cabinet bracing and used one of several methods to dampen resonant enclosure panels. |
@invalid I'm not saying that they are bad caps, just bright/detailed. Have used them in both ribbon and horn speakers, they were too much for them. Think more modern less sensitive speakers will benefit from them, also any speaker on the darker side. Put them in a bright, high sensitivity speaker and they become overwhelming. |
Perspective, this is a major determination of what is best for a certain set of criteria, budget being the most important one in most cases. I have had great experience in upgrading crossovers, designing them from scratch, using very high end manf ones and using active crossovers, all to great effect when done right. My preferences adjust as the system requires it to but when I must use crossovers I much prefer active, if I can make it work for that particular setup. Most speakers that use passive crossovers are substandard, built to a price point, money goes into how they look more than how they sound, sadly so. Many very high end speakers use much better crossover components and design but I would rather go active on a much less costly speaker setup and spend the money where it matters the most in that case, active crossover, amps and decent cables. Looking forward to my next build, mentioned in another threat, Frugel-Horn Joann with MA200 drivers, no crossovers, one pair of great DIY cables, simple, cheap and will be great as long as work in my restrictive space. Rick
|
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.
Completely uniformed claim that just proves you to be a hater.
|
@texbychoice Danny? Is that you, Danny? Here is the source of my information, for all to witness: https://gr-research.com/product/infinity-sm-152/ Like I said, a few sheets of foam and $40 worth of components. To boot, the so-called "upgrade" actually deletes functionality, and it doesn't cost $800 as I falsely misinformedly claimed, it costs $888 - to make $100 speakers sound like $120 speakers. Thank you Danny, you're a genius! Oh and @russbutton is right.
|
My old Acoustic Research AR 9 speakers sounded great in the 1980s. But they need some work now. The old Callins capacitors are shot. I'm fortunate I found a local guy who specializes in rebuilding/refurbishing Polk Audio speakers and is willing to give my AR 9 a look. |
| Post removed |
@texbychoice wrote:
Explain "massive over-complication." You're replacing a passive crossover on the output side of the amp with an active ditto, so the interfacing complication/bottleneck introduced passively between the amp and speakers is removed and instead the crossover duties are placed prior to amplification on signal level. Yes, you'll have yourself another piece of hardware, but it's not simple added to the chain; to reiterate, you're also substracking a passive crossover, so the power transfer from a dedicated(!) amp channel to a driver is vastly improved and simplified in the process. As for the claimed "numerous paths to problems," what are they?
A naturally larger low voltage component count on signal level vs a fewer high voltage ditto used in a passive crossover on the output side of the amp is not a comparable scenario as a marker with regard to its effect on sound quality. As in: it's not something you can simply determine with reference to the number of components used, but rather the more important factor is where and how in the chain either crossover option is implemented (if anything a higher component count has a bigger influence passively). Also note that on signal level you can set the filter values much more precisely, and they don't deviate one bit with varying output loads as they do passively.
Not saying a passive crossover makeover for a moderate outlay can't do a difference or be worthwhile for a given someone, but the active option has to be assessed in a wider perspective on how you approach amp to speaker/driver interfacing and your sound reproduction goals ultimately. While active config. may lead to a bigger investment vs. a passive crossover path in a single setup context, it's also one that can enter a very different ballgame sonically and save you money in the long run. |
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. |
I'm with @texbychoice To believe all this equipment, software doesn't impact sound quality is illusory. I've assembled an entire system with a particular voicing I prefer, I don't want timbre, tonality touched. This includes my passive crossovers intentionally voiced with purposely chosen crossover topology, caps, inductors, wiring, drivers, all work harmoniously to provide preferred voicing. Speakers 103db sensitivity, 7 or 8 watt 300B monoblocks provide an excess of power, so much for passive crossovers sucking power.
As for an all analog system, why in the world would one want to add DSP, defeats the whole purpose of keeping a vinyl setup with it's unique sound qualities. |
| Post removed |
), which provides 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th order filters in 25 Hz increments from 25 Hz to 6275 Hz. The B4 is completely discrete, no OpAmps or ICs. With the B4 a Tympani owner may not only enjoy the benefits of bi-amping, but also exactly duplicate the speaker’s stock crossover. AND enjoy the benefits of not putting the signal through the stock Maggie crossover.
