Xover parts quality,/sound difference?

How many of us either
1) have actually seen with our eyes, the Xover in our speakers
2) know the brands of the parts used, and if its "run-of-the-mill" cheapis or best that money can buy.
I just looked at Madisounds web, and there seems to be from cheap to expensive. Hopefully we do not pay $$$ for a speaker and they are using cheapo parts. Its rare thata lab tells you what parts they use.
We need to take this hooby to a new level. Labs need to be forthcoming as to parts used. I want to know what I'm paying for, don't you?

Labs accountants/owners "lets see i can order 5K of this capacitor for $5/each...thats ...$25K...or I can oder this cap at $40 each, thats....$200K....I think I'll get the $5 cap. Who's gonna know the difference anyway..."
I'm afriad this takes place more often than not.

Like i said earlier, some of the crossovers i've seen were enough to make one want to either laugh, cry or at least shake their head in disbelief.

As far as sensitivity being a major portion of the revelatory importance of such upgrades and differences, i don't necessarily find that to be true. Many of the models that i've performed crossover surgery on were low to moderate efficiency designs. The results there were just as good ( if not better ) than with high efficiency designs.

Part of this may have to do with the fact that most high efficiency designs are bandwidth limited. As such, even if one were to modify and improve the crossover in such a design, the drivers themselves may not have the bandwidth to take full advantage of such mods. Minimizing signal losses and distortions are most beneficial when the drivers themselves are linear enough to reveal such changes and wide enough in bandwidth to reveal the full potential.

Besides all of that, lower efficiency designs can also benefit from the reduction in series losses from crossover upgrades. As noted above, electrolytic caps are FAR more lossy than various types of "exotic" caps. On top of that, high efficiency designs are already pretty responsive to input levels and dynamic shifts. As such, the further gains from reducing internal losses aren't as dramatic with them as compared to lower efficiency designs, where small gains become more noticeable.

Part of this could be due to the typically higher parts count in the crossovers of lower efficiency designs. Lower efficiency designs typically have more parts and more of those parts tend to be electrolytics. More parts upgraded and improved results in a greater overall percentage of improvements. Sean
>

definatley the more complex with higher slope designs, the more expensive and lesser sound to be had per dollar.

Undertow: I think that we are thinking along the same lines, but expressing it in different ways.

While you are saying that more complex crossover designs limit the sonic potential of the system as a whole, and i tend to agree, i'm saying that these designs can be the most responsive to parts upgrades.

Think of fixing a ton of leaks in a boat verses fixing just a few leaks. Obviously, the boat ( or system ) with the least amount of "leaks" ( losses ) would be ideal, but we can't always start there ( or even end up there ). As such, turning 10 gaping holes into the equivalent of what might amount to 3 tiny leaks via the reduction of losses brought about by parts upgrades can obviously make for a very worthwhile approach to improving one's sound and system.

Granted, we still aren't perfectly sealed with some losses taking place, but the before and after results will still be quite evident and speak for themselves when all is said and done.

I say this because it is hard to achieve wide dynamic range, smooth response, high spl's and wide bandwidth simultaneously with very simple designs. As such, some folks "wanting to have it all" have gone the route of more complex speaker designs. They should not be discouraged from trying to upgrade those speakers themselves simply because they have a higher parts count and / or may be more complex to work on. Because of that higher parts count, it becomes even more important to use the best parts that one can afford in order to minimize the damage that the greater quantity of parts does.

As such, keeping it simple is a great rule of thumb. Unfortunately, you can't always keep things simple and achieve ALL of the results that one desires. Trade-off's are involved in most everything that we do, so the key is to keep things balanced and try to keep moving forward. In that respect, i think that we can all agree on one thing for a change : ) Sean
>