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.
@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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
It would be interesting to know whether the JBL models were passively or actively configured for the measurements, because if the former then the crossover itself could also be a co-contributor to frequency response changes at varying SPL’s.
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.
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.
They say they are 10 dB apart, but that would infer NO compression and that’s just not the case.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
"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.
"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.
Just a note that measured "frequency response" is a static measurement at very low power (1 watt) at a distance of 1 meter. When things start moving and real power is sent to the drivers, the dynamics will change the tonal balance and things may sound quite different than they measure.
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.
Just a note that measured "frequency response" is a static measurement at very low power (1 watt) at a distance of 1 meter. When things start moving and real power is sent to the drivers, the dynamics will change the tonal balance and things may sound quite different than they measure.
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.
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.
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.
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.
exactly even the $26K willson watt pupies were totally flawed watch this be amazed! ( he fixes them! )
As Danny points out , no speaker maker is going to deliberately make error in sound a huge blip , gap spike , hole in a graph of frequency response, an error ! it is funny how some people seen to think these things are deliberate and not a mistake
they THINK they want their speaker to sound like crap deliberately ! NO ! https://youtu.be/pIt2pcQvf6M?si=QuDGheuswLyF_2-2
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? ), 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.
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.
Crossovers are intrinsically problematic. Do you choose the drivers before or after designing the crossover? Many choose drivers first I think which is very limiting.
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.
@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:
@russbuttonAwesome 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@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.
"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 .
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 !
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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...
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.
), 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.