First Order Crossovers: Pros and Cons

An even more telling part of the article regarding the group delay of a 8th order L-R crossover.
"Is It Audible?

The conservative answer says it is not audible to the overwhelming majority of audio professionals. Under laboratory conditions, some people hear a difference on non-musical tones (clicks and square waves).

The practical answer says it is not audible to anyone for real sound systems reproducing real audio signals."

It always amuses me when someone makes the claim "It's not audible. Well, not audible to most people most of the time, anyway. Or at least not audible to some people some of the time....."

This is fundamentally no different than the claims that "all amplifiers sound the same" or "lamp cord is perfectly good for speaker wire." Anyone with good ears can only shake his head at such statements. Maybe they hold true in the world of budget-fi, because at some point those differences get swamped by the colorations of the rest of the system. But in a good system, with good music, the differences are plain as day, and time/phase coherence is no exception.

Now, it is not much of a surprise that Rane (and others) would downplay the audibility of time-and-phase coherence, given that they are in the business of selling high-slope crossovers. And in the pro audio world, this is indeed likely the best overall compromise, given that power bandwidth is a serious consideration. I mean that with total sincerity-- if I were designing a pro system with active crossovers, 4th or 8th order L-R would be my first choice, no question. But that doesn't necessarily make it the best for ultra-high-end home audio playback, where other priorities (fidelity to the musical signal in both time and amplitude, for example) take on much higher importance.

The most telling truth is that once someone has lived with a really good time/phase coherent system for some time, he finds it impossible to ever "go back". The lack of coherence in high-order systems, while potentially ignorable if one has never tried anything else, is nonetheless a major step backwards once one has heard the possibilities of an electrostat or a good first-order design. And since the vast majority of systems on the market are still non-coherent, it is quite possible that the majority of audiophiles have never actually lived long-term with a time/phase coherent system, and simply don't know what they're missing.

Luckily, forums such as these allow the minority not only to make our voices heard, but more importantly, to plant seeds of inquiry in the minds of those who may have simply never thought about such subjects before. For to me, there's nothing more satisfying than seeing that light bulb go off, and hearing someone say, "Wow, it sounds like real music!"

Best,
Karl

Is it audible ? I think the best answer is for everyone to demo for themselves and answer for themselves.

I was only quoting from the same source that was cited, since the earlier quote gave an impression that was different than the articles author intended.

Musical realism is the goal of every high end audio designer.

While visiting our local library last week, I heard some symphonic music and immediately thought "that sounds right!"
So I went to see what could sound like an orchestra in a library, and found....a live orchestra practicing in a library!

Each and every design approach has its advantages and its trade-offs. Getting a realistic sound from a system is a complex topic, and a sucessful design is the result of many decisions. The crossover slope is not the sole determining factor in the sound of the speakers. Examining the crossover slope in isolation is impossible outside the digital realm -
you are always introducing variables as the drivers interact and new radiation patterns are established.

I sympathize with the minority given voice on the forums. After all, I am the only manufacturer with Infinite Slope crossovers! I think its important to look at the acoustical wave interference and lobing patterns of the speaker - but since most other companies have no solution to these problems it is seldom talked about except on these forums.

Jeff

I gave the source as an explanation of vector addition. Then since the thread is about 1st-order crossovers, I included a quote that shows the superiority of 1st-order crossovers. There can be no argument with that. "It yields a piece of wire."

You might argue that some drivers won't tolerate 1st-order crossovers. Ok, that's valid. You can then either look for "better" drivers, or you can compromise with a higher-order crossover.

Lobing? If you're looking for certain types of directivity or power response, then that could be a valid concern. I would certainly look with favor upon a high-order L-R crossover for sound reinforcement use, and this is one of the reasons.

There is much concern with flat frequency and power response. I'm a bit skeptical about their importance. (I feel there are other more important problems. Besides that, to paraphrase Pat McGinty, "Once you solve the transient response, power and frequency response fall right into line."

A number of people have suggested ways to test whether phase coherence is audible, and there are indeed studies with conflicting results.

Rane's suggestion of passing a signal through a 4th-order L-R crossover and then summing the output makes sense. (Linkwitz suggests a similar thing.)

But, in order for the test to be valid, we need to play the summed signal via a transducer with no phase distortions of its own.

A panel speaker would seem to be out, since it has widely spaced sources of the same frequency. In the near field, it smears transients.

Speakers with high-order crossovers are out because they're doing the very thing we're trying to test for and there would be no possibility of a control in the experiment.

Speakers approximating a point source, with 1st-order crossovers might be suitable, but I feel the best bet is headphones. It completely removes any phase distortion due to the room as well.

I do plan on performing this test at some point, but at present I can only say that I find the sound of speakers designed to be time and phase correct to be more realistic than those that are not correct.

Looking at this logically, we can say that a speaker that can pass a transient is better than one that can't. We expect the same from other components in the chain.

The compromises needed to build a speaker that will pass transients is where argument arises. That, or the compromise of building a speaker that won't pass transients. :-)

As for "Infinite Slope," I question whether it is beneficial. What is the phase and time behavior like? Don't sharp filters like these ring? Do most drivers actually need such steep slopes? What kind of load does it present to the amplifier?

The NHT Xd would seem to offer more of an "Infinite Slope" than JosephAudio does. :-)

If one is going to go with steep slopes, then the approach taken by DEQX seems attractive. It corrects some of the problems.

As for the intent of the Rane article, for their purposes the high-order L-R alignment is ideal. They sell such crossovers, so their intent was to sell more of them. However, they certainly cannot say "It yields a piece of wire" about their crossovers.

I did not quote out of context, because I did not change the meaning of what I quoted by quoting only it. As for the author's intent, I don't actually care a fig for his intent. The quote I made stands alone.

The rest of the article deals with: "Are 1st-order crossovers more accurate?" "Yes, but..." The author's intent lies within the "Yes, but..."

Would I choose Rane crossovers for sound reinforcement use? You betcha. I wish I had had them. They offer a superior product for that use.