Xover parts quality,/sound difference?

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
>

Sean, I see what you are saying. I agree, also just to clarify I was simply trying to keep it more 'well more simple I guess. I was also more or less just stating that the simpler design in the crossover might have the quicker and more apparent results being able to afford and replace 5 or 6 parts that would be the total crossover, vs. hitting or missing on pulling only a couple Caps in a 14 part - 20 part crossover and hoping for absolute results. But to be honest most of the stuff I ever did was I believe 1st order replacements, but I think my Jm labs from memory were a good 10 or 12 part and were like a 12 or 18 db slope, so second or third order, and I still replaced all the parts with excellent results, but could not comment on just putting in a new hi pass cap or something alone, which yes might have had just as much effect, but I figured money to burn and if I had to tear it apart just spend the extra and do it in one shot. Its all simply putting your money where your mouth is in the end and hearing it especially if you are very familure with your speakers sound you will notice a difference for good or bad, that statement is not directed to anyone specific just a general thought that I follow now cause internet chat boards will not tell the story till you experience it.

I am just completing the process of upgrading my crossover in my Dunlavy IVa speakers. I intend to write a full review of the research I did, and how I chose which components to replace as well as the sonic results.

As a quick summary Dunlavy used an all first order crossover design; that certainly does not guarantee less parts. The bass crossover has four capacitors, one resistor and four inductors. The treble/mid-range crossover section has six resistors, four capacitors and one inductor. The critical path components were determined to be two capacitors (one tweeter and one mid-range), two resistors (again one and one) and two inductors (one mid-range and one bass). The tweeter has no inductor in it's circuit.

I chose to buy very high end components for these circuits believing the added cost was in terms of this hobby fairly cheep when I consider I could get the best available for say an extra $500.

The results are not jaw dropping stunning, but they are definitely worth the investment in time and money. SMOOOOTH is the best word to describe the silky clean sound. I am using the visual description of resolution to describe the improvement. As if I changed the resolution on my computer from a lower setting to the highest, and changed the color from 256 to 1 million. All the same information is present but the picture is so much more appealing and detailed.

I will be writing a full review of the process as an educational tool as well as some praise for the excellent product and service I received from Duelund Coherent Audio. World class!

Jade