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.
I have been a GR follower for some time and did choose to install the Magnepan LRS+ kit of parts he sells and I'm happy with the result. Better top-end, more definition - just "nicer" to listen to and no more $2 fuse in the signal path. It is no secret that Magnepan choose to now offer most of their range in an "X" version, with vastly improved (and costly) crossover components, so it seems both see a market for these types of upgrades.
As Danny points out and I'd tend to agree - many companies build their speakers to a price point, and a glossy wood grained exterior seems to sell better than a fancy crossover - the latter often seems to get the accountants eye the most. Even a cheap but well designed crossover can measure good, but a simple measurement does not have anywhere the discernment of the human ear.
A good quality crossover can significantly increase the cost to build in a cheaper speaker and this is why we often get what Danny refers to as "cheesy" parts.
I'm on the side of better parts matter - not all will agree of course!
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.
Ask yourself what a passive crossover, not least a complex one, does with the amp to driver interfacing as it actually impedes with the power transfer with all that entails with lesser driver control. And then ask yourself what a dedicated, frequency limited amp channel directly connected to each driver section does by comparison. Any which way you want to bend this the former scenario is the real complexity and hindrance; not merely adding up on amp channel in parallel count actively for what’s already described.
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.
Forest for the trees; per earlier paragraph of mine, adding up on amp channels is just that, and they’re working less hard to boot - meaning they’re less likely to fail. Level adjustment actively is the far better and easier option vs. using resistors and trying to match driver sensitivity passively. And, paradoxically, why so many get riled up about amp matching actively boggles the mind. The real need for amp matching is with passively configured speakers, as the harder load they present to the amps makes the amps sound much more different with different speakers. Matching amps to drivers actively is a potential bonus, but no one tells you to. Using the same amp topology/brand top to bottom into the subs to my mind is the preferred scenario.
The power transfer from amp to each driver is not vastly improved.
Yes it is, the more so the more complex/load heavy the passive crossover.
A passive crossover does not consume unreasonable power as has been implied either.
Again, depending on the the complexity of the XO, it most certainly can.
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.
Outboard actively any amp topology can be had. Bundled active speakers usually resort to Class D amps, but they also come in different qualities where reliability needn’t be an issue.
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.
If you choose to go about a DIY-approach with active and filter settings, then no - it’s not plug and play. The fact of the matter is though that you have the more optimal outset with the amp to driver interfacing actively, and sitting in the listening with a laptop and doing filter settings on the fly is vastly preferred vs. running back and forth with a soldering iron replacing filter components. Pick the poison, or the nutritious meal that’s good for your tummy ;)
There’s no doubt that an active crossover is better than a passive one. But why then do so few active crossovers exist? And why do so few speaker companies even offer them? I have an old ARC crossover that I had set at 100hz and it made a huge difference with some electrostatic speakers I have.
When I bought my speakers the manufacturer gave you the option to buy the active crossover and bypass the passive crossover in the speakers. Two years later I bought the active crossover. With the active crossover the sound quality was way above the passive crossover see here last page bi-amplification. @russbuttonis correct.
The VH Audio V-Cap ODAM are an oil damped advanced metalized caps, reportedly very nice in crossovers, and everywhere else for that matter, and relatively smaller physical size. Available up to 47uf. It is crazy to see the large value electrolytics used in some crossovers. If they only in for woofer use, I'd still replace mid and tweeter caps if possible.
Another nice mod I've found is the Duelund bypass caps, specifically made for use in speaker crossovers, I use the silver as a bypass on a Jupiter VT, balances out the warmth of VT with the openness of silver. You'll see the Duelund bypass caps raising ratings of most any cap by a couple numbers in the cap shootouts.
And this brings me to another advantage of passive vs. active crossovers. Myself and others are intentionally manipulating voicing to get exactly the sound quality we seek. An active crossover may give me exactly the freq response I want, but doesn't offer flexible voicing, timbre important here, this not just about tonality. Also, a class D or A/B SS active crossover is the last thing I want to add to my SET tube system. I'd much rather use DSP software such as HQPlayer to tweak my sound, much less obtrusive on the voicing.
Lets talk cheap big film caps for the bass section.
A number of people I've trusted have reported positive experiences from switching caps from bipolar to film. I believe Solen has an even cheaper brand named Axon which is useful here.
My one comment and concern is that in the bass section caps are usually in parallel with the woofer, and the ESR is a critical factor. Reducing this willy nilly is bad and can negatively affect the minimum impedance of the speaker. Keep an eye on it and adjust when needed. Strongly recommend you use a Dayton DATS or similar if you don't already.
Also in the bass, the DCR of a coil may be part of the baffle step compensation, so again, reducing it without a full analysis of the crossover + drivers electrical behavior is risky.
@curiousjim You ask why you see so few active crossovers in home systems. There are very good reasons having to do with sales and marketing. A system with an active crossover means that you need more channels of amplification. How easily do you think a hi-fi shop owner would do offering a loudspeaker with an active crossover and telling his customer that he needed to buy two power amps, not just one? Most customers already have an amp and are now looking for a good loudspeaker to go with it, so theyʻre not going to want a loudspeaker that demands they buy at least one or two new power amps and thus having to sell off the old amp.
An active crossover doesnʻt mesh with someone running an integrated amp or vintage receiver either.
Those few loudspeakers which have been sold with an active crossover, also have come with power amps as a package.
Pro loudspeakers are now typically powered with built-in active crossovers and amp channels (most of which are Class D).
Just because it is a better technology doesnʻt mean you can sell it. Active crossovers in home audio systems are mostly seen in DIY projects. So many advantages, but not from the view of a hi-fi shop owner.
You're right, Solen makes a 200 uF cap that you would only need eight of to make up a 1,600 uF bundle. The parts cost would be about CAN$700 or US$500 per side, plus the bypass you'd want at the center of the bundle.
The Thiels sound clear and detailed, but bigger richer and thicker with more focused, dense imaging. Also a bit more authority in the sound and bass
The choice of audio perspectives sound particularly pristine, clean and pure. They are more refined sounding than the Thiels, while still providing plenty of punch and kick and fun.
So I like them both. I think at the moment I consider the Joseph audio used to be my default two channel speaker speakers, with trips back to Thiel-land sometimes.
My crossovers (which I rebuilt and modestly modded) include a 600 uF and a 1600 uF in the bass circuit, both electrolytics.
About the largest film cap I can find that would pass your audiophile muster is a 35 uF Audience Auricap. It is of course possible to parallel enough of them to reach the desired value. In the case of the 1,600 uF cap, it would take 46 Auricaps - a large bundle, you will agree, that would surely necessitate you outboard your crossovers.
The Auricaps cost $62.49 each, so the 1,600 uF film cap bundle would cost you $2,874.54, in parts only. Per channel.
There’s no doubt that an active crossover is better than a passive one. But why then do so few active crossovers exist? And why do so few speaker companies even offer them? I have an old ARC crossover that I had set at 100hz and it made a huge difference with some electrostatic speakers I have.
Danny Richie aside, there is no doubt passive crossovers can be made to improve sound quality.
Claims of amazing sound quality differences are quite plausible, though often relative to the severely degraded originals.
Crossover components live a hard life in a harsh environment. Their life expectancy can be short, especially small-value electrolytics’. That has to be kept in mind when comparing a brand new component to a 25-year-old one.
Danny made a mistake when he said that most YouTube reviewers were not knowledgeable. ( I'm misquoting) I think he since made a retraction of some sort.
I have a set of JBL L-100T's purchased new spring of 1986 when they were on the cover of stereo review. Before I left Ca. found a retired JBL guy who refoamed the woofers and re insulated them , serviced them and restained the cabinets and fabricated broken pins for the original grills. Now that I have a good SACD player , noticed on some tracks the tweeters are a bit hot. Found the crossover chef on Ebay who makes them for about 35 differen't speakers. Guy is so booked I did not receive them for 3 months. These upgraded crossovers are twice the size of the originals and took awhile to install but what an amazing difference!! More but still tight bass , smoother mid's and nice soft clarity from the tweeters. My living room's not big enough for larger speakers and now I don't feel the need for them.
It's generally acknowledged speakers are the greatest variable in an audio system, therefore, has the greatest influence on system sound quality. That being the case, it makes sense optimizing one's speaker would provide major dividends. Assuming OEM has optimized speaker using relatively crap crossover parts is plain wrongheaded. For manufacturers, cost may be one deterrent to using better parts, but ignorance likely contributing factor. Also, should we assume OEM's have golden ears?
@carlsbad2I'd estimate benefit of my crossover mods far exceed the 2% you mentioned, the inductor changes alone provided that. As for determining benefit ratio I'd posit the low parts count from running SET pre and amp contribute to a relatively high benefit ratio for my crossover mods. I can easily hear changes with swapping out coupling caps, resistors, tubes in both components.
For the doubters, empirical evidence should be your gold standard, don't rely on others for your evidence.
crossovers are the dirty little secret of most if not all speaker manufacturers. Even expensive speakers often have low quality components in the crossovers. The crossover is invisible inside the speaker, seldom discussed by buyers, and not generally in input into a buying decision. Designers are pressured to save money there as more money is put into a beautiful wood or laquer finish that will close a sale.
I have updated crossovers and spent a lot of money on parts. many of the parts I used were more than 10x the price of the parts they replaced. and the results were dramatic improvement. Not cheap at all, not easy as it was a lot of work, but like most efforts to squeeze out the last 2%, rewarding if you don't worry about the money.
The idea is rejected by many, trying to justify it by saying the designer "voiced" it with the ocmponents provided. I think they are hoping a new "pandora's box" of upgrades doen't catch on that they will be forced by thier own need to keep up to spend money on. They don't really want to know that this upgrade is out there. Do you realize that for most consumer goods the designer is given a parts budget that is about 10% of the sale price? that includes cabinet, drivers, crossover, and anything else they need. so corners have to be cut. If you, the consumer, don't need to cut corners, this is a worthwhile upgrade.
I understand and respect low watt, although it’s not my thing at this point in time.
Have you auditioned Hørning speakers? They’re designed for very high efficiency; the Ephrodites have 10 drivers per channel, yet their crossovers consist of one single capacitor.
I'm with @texbychoiceTo 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.
We are respectful and inclusive so yes, everything is acceptable. However, an active crossover with DSP and direct amplification is most likely to yield superior results in terms of overall sound quality.
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.
You provide an interesting alternative path that can work if one likes massive over-complication that introduces numerous paths to problems.
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?
Unless big bucks are spent, the number of cheap, wide tolerance, low reliability components increases at least 10 fold over a passive crossover.
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.
If spending a few hundred to improve a passive crossover is unreasonable, the russbutton solution is insanely costly.
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.
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.
We have the crossover schematics and he is going to replicate the crossover but using modern better performing capacitors and resistors while using the original inductors and replacing the old crappy PVC jacketed wiring with something better.
I'm also going to ask him to take out the response switches from the signal path and leave them at "0". I never used them anyway, so figure why not take them out for a cleaner electrical path.
When he is done, I expect the performance of the speakers to be as good as new or even better. That this can be done to speakers that are 46 years old for a reasonable price is amazing. This is going to cost me around $2000 or so. I could never buy any $2000/pair speaker today that would give me as much value.
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!
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.
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.
@invalidI'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.
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.
@mswaleif 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Now THERE is a ridiculous statement! Ignorance is bliss.
Dear readers, fellow audiophiles and music lovers, I invite you to compare the tone, attitude, and most of all information offered in the above post by devinplombier to that of Danny Richie in the above video. Draw your own conclusions.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
