What's your view of speaker crossovers?
 

Andy Evans wrote:

For years I've been using a single driver now (Monacor 130AL, aluminium
cone like a Jordan). Of course it's not perfect - bass is only just
there and treble could be better. That's the deal. But nevertheless I
add ribbon tweeters (Decca) and take them away. Yes, the ribbon sounds
better but the crossover doesn't.

So, what do you guys feel rocks your boat? Are you in the camp of full
frequency response or that of total integrity (or whatever words you
feel describes a single driver)?

As a reference, the best speakers I know are panels like Magneplanar or
even better Apogee - yes they have crossovers but the sound remains the
same top to bottom in terms of delicacy, so you have the "feel" of a
single driver.

If your drivers are up to the task, just use a first order crossover ( 6dB /
octave).

By its very nature it can't screw up. It will always give constant power and
pressure and eliminate any phase 'nasties'.

To do it right you also need to compensate the drivers to amke their impedance
flat too btw.

Graham

What's your view of speaker crossovers?
 

Eeyore wrote:

As a reference, the best speakers I know are panels like Magneplanar or
even better Apogee - yes they have crossovers but the sound remains the
same top to bottom in terms of delicacy, so you have the "feel" of a
single driver.


If your drivers are up to the task, just use a first order crossover ( 6dB /
octave).

By its very nature it can't screw up. It will always give constant power and
pressure and eliminate any phase 'nasties'.

Paging Mr. Garratt. Someone wants to know how your Tannoys compare....

--
Eiron.

What's your view of speaker crossovers?
 

On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 19:13:11 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:



Andy Evans wrote:

For years I've been using a single driver now (Monacor 130AL, aluminium
cone like a Jordan). Of course it's not perfect - bass is only just
there and treble could be better. That's the deal. But nevertheless I
add ribbon tweeters (Decca) and take them away. Yes, the ribbon sounds
better but the crossover doesn't.

So, what do you guys feel rocks your boat? Are you in the camp of full
frequency response or that of total integrity (or whatever words you
feel describes a single driver)?

As a reference, the best speakers I know are panels like Magneplanar or
even better Apogee - yes they have crossovers but the sound remains the
same top to bottom in terms of delicacy, so you have the "feel" of a
single driver.

If your drivers are up to the task, just use a first order crossover ( 6dB /
octave).

By its very nature it can't screw up. It will always give constant power and
pressure and eliminate any phase 'nasties'.

No, a singe order crossover can't be linear phase - you need at least
second order to achieve that.


To do it right you also need to compensate the drivers to amke their impedance
flat too btw.


That is part of the art of speaker design. You start with the
theoretically correct values, then juggle them to make them work with
the real world impedances. Then you do a sensitivity analysis - that
is sensitivity of the design to variations in speaker and component
tolerance. Then you do a yield analysis to see how many will arrive
within spec, then you centre the design so that even if it isn't
perfect at nominal impedances, as a many as possible will pass spec.

That is why it is only the professionals who can afford to make many
models and even more measurements will ever be good at producing
decent speakers.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

What's your view of speaker crossovers?
 

That is why it is only the professionals who can afford to make many
models and even more measurements will ever be good at producing
decent speakers.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

That's what I'm afraid of - by using no crossover I avoid the "black
art" where a little learning can be a dangerous thing - drink deep, or
taste not the Pierian spring!

What's your view of speaker crossovers?
 

"Don Pearce" wrote


That is part of the art of speaker design. You start with the
theoretically correct values, then juggle them to make them work with
the real world impedances. Then you do a sensitivity analysis - that
is sensitivity of the design to variations in speaker and component
tolerance. Then you do a yield analysis to see how many will arrive
within spec, then you centre the design so that even if it isn't
perfect at nominal impedances, as a many as possible will pass spec.

That is why it is only the professionals who can afford to make many
models and even more measurements will ever be good at producing
decent speakers.



The word 'professional' is a little misleading here - many classic
'homebrew' speakers are actually designs from highly capable and highly
qualified people, many of whom I am sure did not design speakers for a
living. It is also, I feel, a little unfair to suggest that well-known,
established designs didn't benefit from proper design and development
processes - I can't throw examples up without a lot of searching, but I am
aware that it is fairly common that many successful designs will have been
evolved over a great period of time, using sophisticated equipment
(including anechoic chambers) and undergone many refining processes such as
you describe. Then there is also the great likelihood of a raft of feedback
and improvement suggestions from a considerable number of people who will
have built a standard design and gone on to experiment with it - all the
(non professional) home builder has to do is be able to build strictly to
the design...!!

Speakers, like other 'homebrew products' also benefit from the freedom from
the constraints of cost-effectiveness and financial viability of
professionally/commercially produced items where, as we all know, much of
the component cost goes into the cosmetics. There is nothing cheap about
homebrew speakers, even if one is prepared to cost the comparatively
considerable effort of building them at nothing. What you do get, if you are
lucky, is a speaker that might well not have been too cheap to build, but
would have certainly cost a great deal more if it had been a commercial
product.

Mass-produced/commercial speakers will always offer more bang for your buck
and look better (if 'audio furniture' is your thing), but there is nothing
quite like the moment a box you have bashed together in your workshop
actually *speaks* to you for the first time - which is of course when they
will sound their worst, but it is better still when they continue to hold up
after a period of brutally honest comparison with available commercial
products!! :-)

(Having just done it, I can't think why on earth I bothered to type all of
that...??)

What's your view of speaker crossovers?
 

"Andy Evans" wrote in message
oups.com...
That is why it is only the professionals who can afford to make many
models and even more measurements will ever be good at producing
decent speakers.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

That's what I'm afraid of - by using no crossover I avoid the "black
art" where a little learning can be a dangerous thing - drink deep, or
taste not the Pierian spring!



I know bugger-all about, it but crossovers aren't all that scary and you can
always get then 'made to order' if you don't fancy doing then yourself, but
the reason I don't like them (or correction networks) is because I think
that's where the harm is done, if you don't get them right. Earlier on Arny
pointed out problems at the 2 kHz point on a sample I posted, recorded from
a pair of commercial speakers I have here - how about that for being 'right
on the money'....???

What's your view of speaker crossovers?
 

On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 02:05:34 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote


That is part of the art of speaker design. You start with the
theoretically correct values, then juggle them to make them work with
the real world impedances. Then you do a sensitivity analysis - that
is sensitivity of the design to variations in speaker and component
tolerance. Then you do a yield analysis to see how many will arrive
within spec, then you centre the design so that even if it isn't
perfect at nominal impedances, as a many as possible will pass spec.

That is why it is only the professionals who can afford to make many
models and even more measurements will ever be good at producing
decent speakers.



The word 'professional' is a little misleading here - many classic
'homebrew' speakers are actually designs from highly capable and highly
qualified people, many of whom I am sure did not design speakers for a
living. It is also, I feel, a little unfair to suggest that well-known,
established designs didn't benefit from proper design and development
processes - I can't throw examples up without a lot of searching, but I am
aware that it is fairly common that many successful designs will have been
evolved over a great period of time, using sophisticated equipment
(including anechoic chambers) and undergone many refining processes such as
you describe. Then there is also the great likelihood of a raft of feedback
and improvement suggestions from a considerable number of people who will
have built a standard design and gone on to experiment with it - all the
(non professional) home builder has to do is be able to build strictly to
the design...!!

Speakers, like other 'homebrew products' also benefit from the freedom from
the constraints of cost-effectiveness and financial viability of
professionally/commercially produced items where, as we all know, much of
the component cost goes into the cosmetics. There is nothing cheap about
homebrew speakers, even if one is prepared to cost the comparatively
considerable effort of building them at nothing. What you do get, if you are
lucky, is a speaker that might well not have been too cheap to build, but
would have certainly cost a great deal more if it had been a commercial
product.

Mass-produced/commercial speakers will always offer more bang for your buck
and look better (if 'audio furniture' is your thing), but there is nothing
quite like the moment a box you have bashed together in your workshop
actually *speaks* to you for the first time - which is of course when they
will sound their worst, but it is better still when they continue to hold up
after a period of brutally honest comparison with available commercial
products!! :-)

(Having just done it, I can't think why on earth I bothered to type all of
that...??)



Sure I would expect commercial kits to have undergone something like
the same sort of development as a factory-produced speaker - or a
published set of plans for that matter, although as these tend to come
from individuals rather than companies, the opportunities for foul-ups
must be greater.

As for the total homebrew, of course, you are in the lap of the gods,
but your critical faculties might be delayed just a bit before
springing into action ;-)

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

What's your view of speaker crossovers?
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 02:05:34 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote


That is part of the art of speaker design. You start with the
theoretically correct values, then juggle them to make them work with
the real world impedances. Then you do a sensitivity analysis - that
is sensitivity of the design to variations in speaker and component
tolerance. Then you do a yield analysis to see how many will arrive
within spec, then you centre the design so that even if it isn't
perfect at nominal impedances, as a many as possible will pass spec.

That is why it is only the professionals who can afford to make many
models and even more measurements will ever be good at producing
decent speakers.



The word 'professional' is a little misleading here - many classic
'homebrew' speakers are actually designs from highly capable and highly
qualified people, many of whom I am sure did not design speakers for a
living. It is also, I feel, a little unfair to suggest that well-known,
established designs didn't benefit from proper design and development
processes - I can't throw examples up without a lot of searching, but I am
aware that it is fairly common that many successful designs will have been
evolved over a great period of time, using sophisticated equipment
(including anechoic chambers) and undergone many refining processes such
as
you describe. Then there is also the great likelihood of a raft of
feedback
and improvement suggestions from a considerable number of people who will
have built a standard design and gone on to experiment with it - all the
(non professional) home builder has to do is be able to build strictly to
the design...!!

Speakers, like other 'homebrew products' also benefit from the freedom
from
the constraints of cost-effectiveness and financial viability of
professionally/commercially produced items where, as we all know, much of
the component cost goes into the cosmetics. There is nothing cheap about
homebrew speakers, even if one is prepared to cost the comparatively
considerable effort of building them at nothing. What you do get, if you
are
lucky, is a speaker that might well not have been too cheap to build, but
would have certainly cost a great deal more if it had been a commercial
product.

Mass-produced/commercial speakers will always offer more bang for your
buck
and look better (if 'audio furniture' is your thing), but there is nothing
quite like the moment a box you have bashed together in your workshop
actually *speaks* to you for the first time - which is of course when they
will sound their worst, but it is better still when they continue to hold
up
after a period of brutally honest comparison with available commercial
products!! :-)

(Having just done it, I can't think why on earth I bothered to type all of
that...??)



Sure I would expect commercial kits to have undergone something like
the same sort of development as a factory-produced speaker - or a
published set of plans for that matter, although as these tend to come
from individuals rather than companies, the opportunities for foul-ups
must be greater.



I have reservations about 'commercial kits' but the point with well-known,
established *designs* is that they will be very often built by people who
are much more likely to experiment (different drivers, tweaking crossovers -
if nothing else) than people who just scoop up a commercial speaker - the
'cabinet finish' of a commercial speaker would deter most people from
tampering, for a start!! Also the established designs very often have a
worldwide following of enthusiasts who are in touch with each other
(dedicated websites &c.), so the development potential is not
inconsiderable!!



As for the total homebrew, of course, you are in the lap of the gods,
but your critical faculties might be delayed just a bit before
springing into action ;-)


I'm sure 'builder's blindness' comes into the equation, but most homebrew
speaker builders don't stop at just the one pair - even I have built 6 pairs
now and am well aware of how they stack up/compare!!

Sack time now.....

What's your view of speaker crossovers?
 

On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 02:45:41 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:

I have reservations about 'commercial kits' but the point with well-known,
established *designs* is that they will be very often built by people who
are much more likely to experiment (different drivers, tweaking crossovers -
if nothing else) than people who just scoop up a commercial speaker - the
'cabinet finish' of a commercial speaker would deter most people from
tampering, for a start!! Also the established designs very often have a
worldwide following of enthusiasts who are in touch with each other
(dedicated websites &c.), so the development potential is not
inconsiderable!!



As for the total homebrew, of course, you are in the lap of the gods,
but your critical faculties might be delayed just a bit before
springing into action ;-)


I'm sure 'builder's blindness' comes into the equation, but most homebrew
speaker builders don't stop at just the one pair - even I have built 6 pairs
now and am well aware of how they stack up/compare!!

Sack time now.....


But were your builds a developmental progression, examining the
shortcomings of previous models and redesigning the next to address
the details? Or have you just built a LOT of speakers? There is a big
difference. I mean, what is to say your second pair wasn't a whole lot
better than the fifth?

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

What's your view of speaker crossovers?
 

In article .com,
Andy
Evans wrote:



Whenever I compared caps I found that - provided I avoided obviously
daft choices like cheap electrolytics of too low/variable a value -
no-one could actually tell one cap from another purely on sound.

I went through a few months of capacitor testing, and the teflon or
polystyrenes sounded consistently better to my ears, so since then I've
used them for all small values, and polypropylene for all larger values.

I recall hearing various similar comments from some of those who
subsequently failed to be able to hear any differences when they had only
the sounds to go on in the past. This was 20-odd years ago, though, so
perhaps ears have got better - or caps got worse - since then. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html