High order crossovers


Do or can high order crossovers rob a speaker system of more dynamics?
koestner

@tomic601 wrote:  "single caps inserted are bad..so bypass them AND form both of them with DBS....."

Pardon my ig'nernce...what is DBS?

Thanks!

Robbing dynamics? Not so sure. Sucking the soul out of the music 🎶 with that 7th order crossover? You didn’t think that ruler flat response was a free lunch, did you? 

trelja,


I don’t buy your thesis; audiokinesis’ view seems more reasonable.

I’ve owned a great many speakers (not to mention, like most here, I’ve heard countless speakers I don’t own). My Thiel 2.7s are in fact notable for their dynamic sense of liveliness. It’s one of their most salient features, and having auditioned a great many other speakers recently, they remain among the most lively and dynamic I’ve heard. And I’m driving them with 140W/side (CJ tubes) so it’s not like they require some powerhouse amps to come alive.

As for infinite slope crossover speakers and high order crossovers robbing dynamics from the sound, it seems Joseph Audio speakers which use a variation of the infinite slope crossover design, ought to provide one counterpoint: Those who hear, own and review Joseph Audio speakers often remark on how dynamic they are. A sampling:

https://parttimeaudiophile.com/2012/08/14/caf2012-command-performance-av-presents-joseph-audio-bel-c...


Both rooms had dynamics and plenty of “jump” to them



https://parttimeaudiophile.com/2014/11/08/rmaf-2014-audiohouse-rings-bell-with-joseph-audio/




The sound in this room was incredible.

Rich, layered, with oodles of detail and delivered with tone and slam,



https://www.stereophile.com/content/joseph-audio-perspective-loudspeaker-page-2


John Atkinson wrote in the review:


...the Joseph Perspective was free from coloration, and offered a musically involving sound with SURPRISINGLY WIDE DYNAMIC RANGE.



https://www.vpiindustries.com/single-post/2017/12/05/HW-Review-3---Joseph-Audio-Pearl-3


Harry Weisfeld of VPI wrote about his experience with the JA Pearl speakers:


(at a show)

"the Pearls took over the room! They reproduced the power of the Hugh Masakela tape and 45 RPM vinyl with the experience of a live moment. The visiting customers went into that jaw-dropping mode you sometimes get but don’t expect at a show, we had it in spades."


(Listening at his home)...

The drums are no longer a noisy mess, they are perfectly recorded and sound as individual drum heads do. The soundstage was expansive yet perfectly focused. I have been playing this record for 50 years and this was truly one of the great presentations, right up there with the JBL Everest’s for speed and power.


....The $75,000 JBL Everest might be the last word in bass dynamics in a real-world situation but the Pearl 3s are pretty close. That is really saying a lot for the Pearl 3s as they are less than half the price of the JBL’s. The drum heads were rattling, the impact was startling, and the level was ear shattering like a real drum would be in your room and I had no headache. Every nick of the sticks on the rim came through crystal clear. You could feel the drummer breathing while working up one massive weight loss program.




http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/joseph-audio-pulsar-tas-203/


More from the Absolute Sound review of the JA Pulsars:


I listen to quite a bit of music with acoustic guitars. To properly reproduce the sound of a guitar requires a speaker that has the ability to reproduce both dynamic weight and power in the lower midrange and upper bass. Given their size it’s hard to believe that the Pulsars can pump out as much dynamic contrast in the lower midrange and upper bass as they do. Martin Simpson’s guitar on Randy Newman’s song “Louisiana 1927” from Prodigal Son [Compass Records] demonstrates the Pulsar’s lower midrange dynamics nicely. Even when a cello and resonator guitar join Simpson’s solo guitar the micro-dynamic contrasts don’t become compressed. All the subtleties of Simpson’s right-hand technique come through with no loss of detail even after the addition of an extensive “string section.”


AND:


Audiophiles often use the term “fast” to describe speakers that handle dynamic transients and contrasts well. Using this rather broad description the Pulsars are veritable light-sabers.



https://www.soundstagehifi.com/index.php/equipment-reviews/658-joseph-audio-pulsar-loudspeakers


Another review of the JA Pulsars:


The speed of the Pulsar’s bass was revelatory with acoustic jazz. I played a lot of Bill Evans, and Scott LaFaro’s double bass sounded incredible, with all the sinewy twists and turns in his technique easy to follow -- and the pacing was perfect. That speed and clarity were perfect adjuncts to the tunes on Stoa, by Nik Bärtsch’s Ronin(CD, ECM 1939), in which Bärtsch leads his band through a series of acoustic workouts. The music is at turns bombastic and intimate, the band is incredibly tight and fluent, and the sound is splendid. I played the 15-minute opener, “Module 36,” a number of times back to back. It moves from a contemplative opening to a frenetically paced climax, and the Pulsars’ pace, rhythm, and timing were riveting: kick drums and bass lines were completely distinct, beautifully articulated, and had great impact. These speakers could provide a convincing facsimile of real bass wallop.



So your claim that infinite-slope/higher order crossovers result in speakers that are not dynamic may be your own opinion, but it doesn’t seem to go much beyond that given the experience of many others contradict the idea.




@c1ferrari , thank you very much.

I think there are scientific explanations for many of our subjective observations.  

When the science and the observation seem to be at odds, then either the observation has a mistake in it or the science is faulty or incomplete.   In other words, I don't see "science" as necessarily being "the absolute truth" on a given subject - it is just our (hopefully) best understanding of the subject at this point in time.  


I think there are scientific explanations for many of our subjective observations.

When the science and the observation seem to be at odds, then either the observation has a mistake in it or the science is faulty or incomplete. In other words, I don't see "science" as necessarily being "the absolute truth" on a given subject - it is just our (hopefully) best understanding of the subject at this point in time.
Just to pollute the waters more, there are weaknesses behind the measurements as well as interactions that are very difficult to account for....such as an interaction with a specific amplifier...or how do you measure how a speaker images?

We will always likely need science plus observation...and then of course we need different flavors for different tastes and different rooms. It never ends and can never be solved.  ;-)