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.
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.