Is Parasound on to something? Or, How important is crossover management in preamps?


How important is crossover management in mid-fi receiver?

I auditioned Parasound separates yesterday — P6 and A23+ and the dealer emphasized how useful it would be to be able to control the crossover *both* for the subwoofer (I have a Rel 328) and the bookshelves (TBD, but I'm looking at Dynaudios and Salk WOW1's). Not many preamps have this, and I'm wondering how important it is. I'm also quite interested in PS Audio's separates (Stellar Gaincell + S300) but they do not have these, nor do they have tone controls.

So how valuable is Parasound's controls? What is the significance (positive or negative) control over the crossover — especially of the *main* speakers themselves? The positive, I read, is that it (a) allows mains to do a more precise job by relieving them of the burden of the bottom end, and (b) it increase the efficacy of the power amp in driving the mains. Is there a negative? Is there something "improper" about limiting the demands on mains, especially given their designed frequency range?

As you can see, the answer to this question helps determine whether Parasound has a major value-adding feature in these crossover controls.

Obviously, at the end of the day, auditioning pre's and poweramps (or integrateds) is crucial, as is match to speakers, etc. But if this feature is very important for fitting sub and mains together — and fitting speakers to room environments — then it will help me weigh the Parasound or any other preamp with this feature.

P.S. To those who keep seeing my newbie questions, I hope they're not irksome. I'm posting so often because I'm researching purchases for a whole system, of some cost, and so I'm really digging into these questions about all aspects. And I'm having a blast.
hilde45

Showing 11 responses by hilde45

Thanks. I’ve written to PS Audio to ask if they have a technical reason not to have this on their unit. I’ve read about the measurement issues, but so many people think it sounds great I’ll probably try it out.
Thanks, Erik. It sounds like all things being otherwise equal, the Parasound feature is a plus.
Thanks, Millercarbon. It seems like if everything sounds good, then the crossover is a plus. (I never said I wanted to make the decision without making listening the highest priority. That would make me a technophile gear head. But I like music.) The division into fifths is something to consider. Thanks for mentioning it.
Here's the take from PS Audio sales. I asked them why their stuff didn't have what Parasound did.

The reply: "We believe handling the crossover is actually detrimental to the sound quality. When a speaker designer finalizes a design for a speaker they have typically done so very carefully. A large part of this process is the crossover itself. So it’s a little bold to believe we can set a better crossover point than the person who designed it."

So, I'm surprised that Parasound, which gets good reviews and seems well-respected would do something so detrimental to the sound quality. Seems gimmicky and non-audiophile to do that. 
@cal3713 Good points. The only other reason they might have put the feature in, besides the one you state, is that customers demanded it, despite the effect on sound quality. What I'd like to find out from them, is whether they believe they've pulled it off in a way that makes a minimal/negligible impact. And you're right that I don't want to go that crazy with DIY audio! I'm just trying to determine whether this feature is important — all other things being equal — contingent upon the effect is on sound quality.

@djones51 I suspected they'd say something defending their product (of course!) but I didn't know what they'd specifically say. Also, I am a charitable guy; they might have had some additional reasons I had not considered. Instead, they made an argument based on not messing with the speaker's design, as if every speaker's design would contribute to all rooms, uses, components, etc. If folks here are right, that is specious reasoning. The fact they committed that to print tells me something (maybe not much) about the company more generally. It helps with my purchasing decision.
Ok, well I’m confused, then. Consider:

Fact: Parasound offers something that changes the crossover point for the speaker design. They argue (and some here agree) that’s overall beneficial for sound because it reduces burden placed on speakers and amp while improving the integration of sub, speakers, and room.

Fact: PS Audio asserts they don’t offer that feature because it speaker crossover design shouldn’t be interfered with and that this adds circuitry that harms the overall sound.

Dilemma: either Parasound’s feature is beneficial to the achievement of audio quality *overall* sound or it’s not.

(a) If it IS helpful, then it IS ok to interfere with the crossover of the main speakers and PS Audio’s argument is wrong.

(b) If it IS NOT helpful, then it is NOT ok to add circuitry and interfere with the crossover of the main speakers and PS Audio’s argument is right.

If (a) is true, the PS Audio’s reasoning is specious.
If (b) is true, Parasound’s feature is detrimental to overall sound and shouldn’t have been included in their product.

There is another alternative:

(c) The question doesn’t really matter very much, and while people make design choices and then argue for them, these are tantamount to cosmetic differences and the differences highlighted are more marketing than engineering arguments. I’ve made a mountain out of a molehill. In which case, the answer would be (as I think was said by least one person above): "Fuggedaboutit."

@djones I connect the Rel in the way indicated — Speakon to speaker terminals. It works well.
I have small bookshelves that only go down to 45hz. This is why I'm interested in this question.
And I believe I told PS Audio I had a sub and small bookshelves. That's why I'm confused about the validity of their answer.
Thanks for trying to think this through with me. The purchase of my amplification may hang on this question, other things being more or less equal.
Thanks Doug for weighing in. I may write to Salk. I appreciate the various views, and may just have to remain agnostic because I cannot sort out what's best. I'll go listen and consider my day to day needs. 
@almarg and @douglas_schroeder and all,

I never complained about axes to grind; I am just trying to get straight. So, I emailed Jim Salk about this question, giving him all the information about my sub, which amps, etc. The short version of his answer is that crossovers for the main speakers can help. Here’s Jim (I hope it’s ok that I’m quoting him):

"I normally let me speakers run full range and bring the sub up under them. But, of course, I am always using much larger speakers. In the case of the WOW1’s, they are down 3db at 48Hz. So I would set the subwoofer crossover to 55 or 60Hz if you wanted to play them full range.

But there is a case that can be made to use a preamp/processor to set the crossover higher. For example, most home theater processors would probably define the WOW1’s as being a “small” speaker and use 80Hz as the crossover point, running the sub with no crossover (all pass) since the processor will only send audio under 80Hz to the sub. The benefit of this is increased power handling. The deeper a speaker plays, the more cone movement is required. The cone can only move so far (XMAX) before it bottoms out. But when eliminating some of the bass duties, not as much cone movement is required so it can play louder without bottoming out.

Of the two, I would probably opt for the latter approach since it would allow your system to play louder without bottoming out the WOW1 woofers."

@almarg Thanks for that information. At this point, choosing will come down to listening and then seeing if the Parasound is good enough so that that extra feature tips the scales towards it.

If I didn’t prefer the Parasound, though, I supposed I could get an external crossover and have that feature with a different preamp — perhaps with more precision, even? That would allow me to get the preamp I like best *and* having the control a crossover gives.

If I have this wrong, or if adding a crossover is a complicated affair, please set me straight. This solution could be the one that splits the difference.s

I learned something here, but not quite enough to make a judgment about Parasound's approach. www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2_gRAbnzyk
@douglas_schroeder Thanks for the reality check. I realize I'm just playing with tinker-toys, so to speak. This research can really get away from one — there are so many suggestions I've gotten which has essentially dangled the carrot of the higher level gear before me. But I am trying to remain located within the parameters which are realistic for *this* enterprise: bookshelf speakers, sub, $3k budget, smaller room. 

I may realize after listening that given the small differences possible, some features which might make higher end folks cringe will actually be practical and convenient (e.g. a knob, a remote, etc.), and I can accept them as level-appropriate. 

By the way, I wasn't considering making any modifications to the speaker itself — just getting a box of some kind to interpose as a crossover control.

If at some point I gain a space in my house for larger speakers, your advice about that will be quite salient. (Just have to work on my WAF.)

@almarg @cal3713 @douglas_schroeder Q.E.D. as they say in logic. This clinches it for me. I do not want to start building crossovers, nor pay for expensive ones. I like the idea of keeping things simple. So, what I know now is this: the feature on the Parasound is not a gimmick, nor is it a necessity. It is a plus if and only if *literally* everything else for my ears is equal. I'm very happy with that answer and with the evidence for it. Thank you!