2. speakers
  3. 137349-82539

Is Speaker design evolution stagnant

Based on what I read from speaker manufacturers, many use the same drivers but apply different crossover philosophies to achieve a particular sound.

My simplistic understanding is that while limiting the range of high or low signals , the remaining signal is corrupted ( phase inversions, roll off, etc.. ).

With today’s technology, why aren’t more speaker manufacturers using active crossovers to be connected after the preamp and sending exact spectrum signals separately to be amplified to each driver.  That would Eliminate all electronics inside the speaker cabinet except the drivers. Each driver gets fed only the signal that it works best at. No out of phase, half phase, quarter phase issues, no phase angle issues. 100% of the power goes to each driver without limiters to scale it back.  I think Bryston Model T Actives is designed this way ( don’t work for them and not pushing any product). Am I looking at it too simply? Do electronic crossover play havoc on signals the way inductors and capacitors do?

Some speaker manufacturers have gone half way with built in woofer amps ( Vaughn?)

Of course you would need a 3 channel amp for each side ( based on W/M/T config) or some variable of mono amps, whatever.



jacksky
bache's avatar
bache
528 posts
 
kssst_amojan,  I dont want to argue.  You are DIY guy and build and
rebuild for own use, i hope you sound as perfect as you tell us. 
 is no secret we use high quality amp module from Hypex , it not such
expensive and no chip, we have account and get good price. you see
on market now plenty accembled   amps based on Hypex M-core
Some people like it ,some not, but  without doubt is best choice
to amplified  25-700 hz, The quality , damping is excellent  amd price
for all parts no more $700-800      per speakers ( no labor cost)    FOR mids and high my customers using low power class A  (tub or solid
state)   My personal preference is Pathos double TT   20 Watt per channel. See my   http://bacheaudio.com/bache-audio-002ab-loudspeakers-v2-stereotimes-com/ 

  http://bacheaudio.com/6moons-audioreviews-bache-audio-002ab/
Post removed 
lewinskih01
910 posts
 
Kosst,

What you describe is true, sometimes. As usual it depends on implementation. Active digital xo aren't that complicated to implement and can solve the issues you describe if done right. At a fraction if the cost of passive. But the system has to be designed to work that way - not just the xo.

Why this isn't used more frequently? The learning curve is steep. It's a lot more involved. You need to be able to measure. It's a lot simpler to connect an amp with a pair of wires to the speaker,  play music and call it a day.
ivan_nosnibor's avatar
ivan_nosnibor
1,054 posts
 
lewinskih01 +1
mozartfan
2,143 posts
 

Based on what I read from speaker manufacturers, many use the same drivers but apply different crossover philosophies to achieve a particular sound.

My simplistic understanding is that while limiting the range of high or low signals , the remaining signal is corrupted ( phase inversions, roll off, etc.. ).



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I can see where you are  goping with this *stagnant* idea
Yes agree.
Wayyy back when. Speakers for hollywood's early days were FC/Wide banders.
,,fast forward,,, along came xover things. 
WE all fell for them. Sure EV < Zeinth, SupraVox, Jensen a  few others had some nice speakers with wide banders,, but the labs had to go where the money was, rock N rollers wanted the boxes with xovers.
A few were allright, most sound like garbage.

Some folks like pannels/stats, others horns, others xover box types.
While others are showing interest in the new wide band designs. New = past 10 years.

I am of the new WBer camp.
And i've decided to invent/design/experiement with my own ideas of what is possible/not possible with these WBers.
Thing is don't need xovers, as i have  no exp in designing xovers.
Stats/panels pretty much are the same past 30 years. 
same issues
Horns, again, pretty much same issues as tyhe early days.
Xover types, same old, same old. Great Rock N roll speakers. 
There are the new concentric types that are making a  hit, like ZU's, 
This design although a  good alternative to WBers, just ain't my cup of tea.

Everyone is going to stay with his own preference of speaker.
A few might have several designs in their collection, but most really are just happy with the one selected design.
I have found some use for the xover widwoofer and a  tweeter as sort of supporting roles in the operatic casting.
The main tenor and soprano are the WBers. 
W18's + tweet are welcomed on stage as long as both are well behaved and don't  voice grouchy/colored.
Midwoofers have to be neutral like the WBers and tweets have to be 91/92db. 

I note Seas has a  dedicated midrange, which may substitue for a  WBers midrange magic, but my tech gave 2 thumbs down on that idea for a  3 way. After this idea, I completely abandoned xover types a a main voice in my speaker set up.
So like yeah to answer your Q. I ain't waiting around for Seas to develope a  breakthough in  a  midrange magical speaker or a  super WBer.
Seas put all their money in the xover types, and never gave a  hoot about the WBer design. 
The Exotic is wayyyy over priced and its a  older design.
Too old.
The other with the grey cone is trash garbage. Inspite of the YTer tech geek with all his measurements  giving 2 thumbs up to that Full range.
I sent them  back  to Madisound after a  15 minute testing , 

Everyone here is going to gravitate towards his speaker design by choice.
xover fan'atics ain;'t going to dump xover box designs and jump on the WBer band wagon. 
But at least, I am now awake and aware these WBers do exist and do make some nice musical sounds.
There are countless possibilities to  put together something really nice with whats already out there. You just have to get creative.




More to discover