Speaker Analysis for Armchair Critics

Now..many can see why all I said was: Thanks, Erik.

As... it can get ugly out there... prolly best keep my mouth shut on the subject of speaker design.

@teo audio,
If we let the 'know it all's' dictate our behaviour, then we are lost.
Bob

@gdnrbob  so right, opting out just hurts the contribution centered community and learning.....but I get the thick skin sometimes required....

Erik:

Thank you for sharing that link. 

I believe the article is fascinating on several levels.  Thank you for possibly one of the most thought provoking posts (IMO obviously) of the year.

I happen to find pleasure using several older B&W matrix series speakers. 802,804,805 etc In different settings around the home.  I like their sound, I run them with Bryston power, and various sources. It pleases me, not trying to say it’s perfect. (Use what pleases YOUR ears, not here to push an agenda)

B&W btw has web access to see their crossovers for all their models in Service Manuals. On my two way 805 for example there is a far more sophisticated crossover than the two way analyzed in the linked article from Eric.

It would be fascinating to speak “off the record” to the people who made the decisions regarding crossover choices in the model reviewed.  
Would they say:

1) Cost drove the decision?
2) Some version of “Played side by side with competing speakers in typical show rooms, polls of unsophisticated listeners prefer this sound”
3) If we put in a proper crossover, even with inexpensive components, it would sound SO good, people wouldn’t buy the more expensive line of speakers.
4) We think it sounds great this way, why change it?

Personally I find it surprising they use (apparently) very good quality drivers, but hamstring (again, apparently) the crossover. 

I think the least likely explanation is that B&W actually thinks it sounds “better” than with a more appropriate crossover..... so it begs the question why?

The ironic part of this discussion is that B&W are not stupid collectively as a company. Odds are likely that the majority of us in this forum, if charged with making the decision of how to release this particular speakers crossover, might actually AGREE with B&W decision once the true reasons were revealed. 

(ie Porsche knows it’s SUV are a dilution of their core product, but to survive and produce their “good stuff” they essentially have no choice.)

Hello @xyobgyn

Thank you for your kind words.

I think crossover parts are pretty cheap en masse. I don’t think that’s the biggest factor, but I do think that trends and product differentiation are important motivators for speaker makers. Having speakers that sound different than the masses, as well as making sure your more expensive speakers sound better than your mid range speakers is very important.

If you can get enough reviewers to agree that your speakers are among the finest, then you can turn public opinion around.

There’s also a lot to be said for having hills and valleys in your response curve. It makes your speaker accentuate certain notes, and like I said, different is often perceived as better.

So, back to the word "hamstring." From a sales stand point, this may be no hamstring at all, plus there is something to be said for having a variety of sound profiles to purchase from. The world would be a very boring place if every speaker sounded like mine. :)

But, I think the write-up does a fantastic job of showing just how much lee-way a crossover designer has in making the speakers sound one way or the other.

The corporate identity and the target sound at B&W has changed significantly over the years.  For a very long time I used DM1800 speakers (with metal domes) that sounded wonderful.  Nowadays I find B&W, especially their more costly offerings, near unlistenable.

The first B&W Matrix 801, 802 (I still have a set of the latter) included adjustment dials on the back of the module contains midrange and tweeter.

perhaps a nod to the idea that YMMV.

Quite possibly we should have crossovers with some caps and or resistors we could swap easily to adjust the sound to where we want it. 

Makes more sense to me than swapping around fuses, power cords, and cables to tame or enhance the tone.  We are acknowledging here that there is huge variation in how a designer arrives at the sound THEY perceive we will prefer.

why not make it the way we want?

Xyobgyn wrote: "Quite possibly we should have crossovers with some caps and or resistors we could swap easily to adjust the sound to where we want it."

I have been making crossovers with an external resistor that functions as a "tilt/level" control; that is, it effects the tweeter’s level more up at 10 kHz than it does down at 2 kHz, the theory being that this would be more useful in dealing with real-world variations in room acoustics than a level-only L-pad.  Also, L-pads are not readily available at the same quality as say a Mills resistor. 

I also like to build in some low-end adjustability in the form of multiple pluggable ports.

Ime often changing capacitors = re-designing the crossover, as there is often a rather precise balance between capacitor values and inductance values in a circuit, such that a change in one often calls for a change in the other.

Duke

which is why you need to stop tinkering with these horrible passive crossovers

Kenjit wrote:

"which is why you need to stop tinkering with these horrible passive crossovers."

The fallacy here is that your statement assumes facts which are not in evidence. You have not established that passive crossovers are horrible, nor that mine in particular are horrible.

Duke

Other than his ability to troll these pages, Kenjit has established nothing at all