Are first order crossovers best?

I didn't want to bias any opinions, color any insights or cause any undue discourse by throwing in the names of those cable manufacturers that made mention of their applications with different speakers crossovers... though they brought it up, not me. they are prominent and popular wire makers, for sure. I own some of their products myself, and am most pleased with the preformance, which is what ushered me to go back and check them out once more.

Everybody is trying to make the best item they can. Of that I'm positive... some fall short... some don't have resources enough to attain the goal... and with such a plethora of designs and configurations of designs, my attendance to "Simpler is better", in this regard may well not hold true, or be entirely accurate, I suspect. I also clearly see the logic in the "Hear for yourself" notion... and were I able to jump in the car my weekends would be filled with that activity. Trust me, they certainly would. Such is not the case. 'All roads lead to Roma', or so I've heard. fine. I just don't want to take the 'scenic' route... or as little as possible. yes, until the speakers are sitting in the living room, no one really knows.... dealers ain't big on the idea of lending out speakers too much around here... unless you lay out the full bill... and I ain't by nature or economics able to fade that action... especially in the 4K to 8K retail range... so even in face to speaker comparisons, it's doubtful anyone can truly say that'll work fine in my room....without hauling all their gear in to try things out... and even then perhaps. So some research in advance to cull the herd, seems wise enough a notion to me.

Let's say all the drivers are of equal value in a certain enclosure... the heart of the system then would have to be the crossover, I would think. Like the transmission and brakes in a car. Great motors need those two items to get ya where you want to go. the more closely matched and better they perform, those latter devices are meshed, the better the efficiency and hence performance of the overall system. I would think.

Given all the insights, and debate, if nothing is clearly determined, it remains beneficial and noteable in and of itself, to find out that certain crossover designs are better suited (or not), to particular driver configurations, and evne that notion seems without great substance in determineing a choice solely on that one crossover over another, provides more naturalness and fluidity in development of the signal. for audible re-creation. One factor I overlooked in my haste was to add for three, or four way enclosures. As they are the focus for me. I’d really like to have a pair of speakers that do not need subsonic aid… but so far, the few I’ve found to do that deed are either cost prohibitive, or are lacking elsewhere in sonic reproduction… mind you, I don’t need perfect… just balanced would suffice… with any prominence or lean, being set toward the mid and/or lower ranges, though balance is the goal. Which is in keeping with my sonic preferences.

Of all the imformative venues I’ve experienced, this one remains an insightful, and dependable one as I’ve encountered on my little audio-addict sojourn. And why I prevail upon the experiences of those with far more than I.

thanks immensely.

Brianmgrarcom...Take a look at the schematics for first and fourth order X/O, and think again about which is more difficult and expensive to design and build. However, your comment about having fewer components in the signal path is very valid. IMHO this, rather than phase issues, is the chief advantage of the first order X/O.

I have a hunch that manufacturers who use first order crossovers, often for very good technical reasons, feel vulnerable to accusations that they are looking to save cost, and respond with marketing hype and the suggestion that their crossover design involves some mysterious art.

Crossovers are a necessary evil. Even the so-called "full range" drivers have crossovers...mechanical crossover that causes only a small section of the cone (sometimes a separate section called a "wizzer") to vibrate at HF. The only truly crossover-free driver is an electrostatic.

Thanks Eldartford, I hope I made it clear enough in my post that I am not making comments of any great authority of my own, just some things I was told and/or picked up. I was simply told that it is harder to do a first order cross over correctly than higher order, if that isn't the case I am fine with that, but it would beg the question, why don't more manufacturers do first order cross overs. (Another "thought", is it possible that schematics for a high order cross over looks more complex, but it is actually harder to get the same result with less parts, therefore in the end the one looks simpiler but the road to the result was just the opposite?)

"However, your comment about having fewer components in the signal path is very valid. IMHO this, rather than phase issues, is the chief advantage of the first order X/O."
Eldartford, i think that you are discounting the merits of 1st order x/o far more than you should. (LOL! you could accuse me of the opposite! Anyway, w/o meaning to take a pot-shot @ you; rather, to have a meaningful discussion...) there is a definite merit to using 1st order x/o circuits in a speaker that has to do w/ better preservation of phase compared to a 2nd, 3rd, 4th & higher order x/o ckts. your statement of 1st order x/o ckts having a phase shift is very true but what you forgot to write was that 1st order x/o ckts are the only ckts that maintain a constant phase over freq. No other higher order x/o ckt has this feature. it is also true that a 4th order x/o ckt yields a 360 degree ph shift, which can be equated to a 0 degree ph shift but the key here is to realize that in the 4th order x/o ckt, the phase shift between tweeter & midrange & woofer is 0 degrees *only* at the x/o frequency. at all other freq above & below the x/o freq, the ph shift amongst these 3 drivers varies i.e. it's not constant. this is *unlike* a 1st order x/o ckt (which maintains a const ph shft above & below the x/o freq). That Rod Elliot paper I provided a link to describes this very well. IMHO, it is this preservation of ph shft across the freq band that makes music thru a 1st order x/o speaker sound far more real than one w/ a higher order x/o.

"I have a hunch that manufacturers who use first order crossovers, often for very good technical reasons, feel vulnerable to accusations that they are looking to save cost, and respond with marketing hype and the suggestion that their crossover design involves some mysterious art."
it is possible that they do cover up w/ some marketing hype. however, i do feel that few people in the audio manuf industry understand how to correctly implement a 1st order x/o speaker. there is much skill needed. IMHO, you might be discounting their talent a bit too much. maybe you have some experiences that lead you to believe that 1st order x/o speakers are all hype? you seem to be jaded? or, is it typical cynicism from an engineer?

"....but it would beg the question, why don't more manufacturers do first order cross overs."
there might be several reasons for this. I can shed light on 1-2 that *I* think are the reasons. it is only quite recently that well-made drivers have become available. i define "well-made drivers" as those that have a wide(r) range of operation such that they can be x/o at reasonably high freq. For example, the 10" Audax woofer in my 1st order speaker is x/o at 350Hz to the midrange but the woofer has a flat response upto nearly 1 octave higher. this has allowed the speaker designer to make a true 1st order x/o speaker 'cuz @ the x/o freq only the electrical network kicks in & the driver roll-off due to its mechanical structure has not yet kicked in. Most drivers in yester years did not have such performance. Thus, they were not true 1st order x/o speakers - @ the x/o freq they had the 6dB/oct roll-off from the electrical netwrk + the 6dB/oct roll-off from the physical driver. so, they were, in effect, 2nd order systems.
2ndly & related to the above reason, it is only very recently that drivers are better able to handle more spurious power. by this I mean that in a 1st order x/o, the roll-off slope is very shallow (6dB/octave) so a considerable power leaks into the adjacent driver (woofer's power into the mid & mid's power into the tweeter). with the advent of better power handling drivers, the speaker designer is better able to make a speaker that can play at reasonably high volumes. Even then, a 1st order x/o speaker cannot play all that loud. For example, the woofer in my speaker compresses at 105dB SPL. Quite loud but way softer than a 4th order x/o speaker of the same physical size & power handling. So, if one wants to play rock at paint-peeling loud volumes, this is not the speaker. Several users do not like this short-coming. the slope of a 4th order x/o is much steeper & the power leaked into adjacent drivers is significantly less.
Aside from this, if you read the Rbischoff thread that I provided a link to, you notice that a 1st order x/o speaker does have to deal w/ "comb" effects i.e. periodic nulls created in the space surrounding the speaker. i believe that every speaker design has to deal w/ this but, it's my understanding that, in 1st order x/o speakers this effect is worse.
Additionally, improper implemented 1st order x/o speakers seem to have very poor vertical dispersion so that if you stand up from your listening seat, the 1st order magic sound is lost. it takes some skill to minimize (or even eliminate) this effect.

Eldartford, while obviously somewhat esoteric I think the original Walsh driver Ohms could be included with ES drivers as being cross over free. As you said (and I completely agree) that cross overs are a necessay evil, even ES drivers have limitations with regards to frequency range at typicaly desired volume levels. On another note when do we seperate mechincal from electrical cross overs?