2. speakers
  3. 137974-2439

High order crossovers

Do or can high order crossovers rob a speaker system of more dynamics?
koestner
erik_squires
16,898 posts
 
btw a lot of the output in so called high efficiency designs is trash ( distortion ).... which the efficiency spec takes no note of.....

Maybe true, but our hearts and ears buy speakers, not test gear, so it is worth listening with your geek off. 

But I do think that listening to Vandersteens as exemplars of low order crossovers is a good idea if that is your question. Of course, you can also listen to full-range (i.e. single driver) zero crossover speakers to see if they float your boat in terms of dynamics. 

Or for something truly different, build the Seas A26 kit:

https://www.madisoundspeakerstore.com/2-way-speaker-kits/seas-a26-10-2-way-kit-pair-based-on-the-cla...

In terms of crossover slopes, it doesn't get much simpler than this. 

Best,

E
c1ferrari
464 posts
 
Duke, @audiokinesis,
I greatly appreciate the elucidation.Thank you.
Sam
audiokinesis
2,772 posts
 

@erik_squires wrote:  "I feel as if low order crossovers were actually significantly better in dynamics I'd have heard it. "

I think true (acoustic) first order is more dynamic, ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL. 

All else is seldom equal. 

There is a tradeoff relationship between bandwidth and efficiency, and a true first-order crossover calls for a LOT of bandwidth.  For a system with a 2 kHz true first-order crossover, we'd want the midwoofer to be approximately flat to 8 kHz, and the tweeter to be approximately flat to 500 Hz (with adequate thermal and mechanical power handling).  We have to trade off efficiency to get this sort of bandwidth.  Thus we don't see high efficiency speakers with true first-order (acoustic) crossovers.  

Pick your poison.

My current poison of choice starts out with a 6 dB per octave initial rolloff and then accelerates to 24 dB per octave.  This seems to work pretty well with some combinations of high efficiency drivers.

Duke  

Post removed 
prof
3,534 posts
 

I’ve owned phase/time coherent speakers from Quad (ESL 63), Meadowlark, and Thiel (CS6, CS3.7 and CS2.7), and a lot of other designs using higher order crossovers.


I still have no idea if there is something audibly different and inherent to a first order crossover speaker, given all the variables involved. I can say that all the Thiels had a particular characteristic that set them apart from most speakers I’ve heard: a level of imaging focus and in particular, imaging "density" where, for lack of better explanation, it seems like all the sonic information related to an individual voice or instrument in the soundfield seems "lined up" right where it should be. No swimminess at all. It gives a real sense of solidity to the sound.


I have heard such characteristics imputed to time/phase coherent speakers, but then again the Meadowlarks didn’t have this quality to the degree the Thiels have, nor did the Quads (though I find all electrostatics suffer from a lack of palpability to begin with, so apples to oranges there).


I remember the first-order Dunlavy speakers having a similar density of imaging/tone/palpability like the Thiels as well.


Tonally I’ve heard many gorgeous 2nd or 3rd order crossover speakers. Paul Hales was fantastic in this regard and his Transcendance speakers were among the most tonally beautiful and accurate sounding I’ve heard.
But after a while I missed that sense of "thereness" and density I had from earlier Thiel speakers, and I eventually found my way back to Thiels.


Again, just some anecdotes, not really an explanation for them.


I still find all sorts of higher order speakers really fantastic, tonally, dynamically and otherwise.


More to discover