Designing a good passive crossover requires making good driver choices in the first place and it’s all about the ’the slide area’, as Ry Cooder might have called it. How much can you slide the crossover ranges around?
Or, the area of adjustment overlap. How linear and stable the drivers are in the crossover range, and how much overlap there is in the given frequency ranges. It’s an ugly task that takes time to master and it is all compromise, compromise, compromise.
A digital crossover is all compromise as well, with the major fault of being severely quality limited (brick walled) before you even begin. Best not go there.
So we’re left with active analog and passive crossovers, for those who seek quality in their gear.
As for costs, yes it gets quite expensive.
First, one can get to a linear space or place or minimal agreement spot, with inexpensive components....and then venture into the pile of expensive parts to test via. Then slowly zero in on the right spot, the best compromise. Zobels can be important, in my experience. lightly applied zobels, not over-damped zobels, can make a difference. I have a pair of those passive adjustable crossover boxes, which can really help in the initial stages. then add in expensive parts, then add in the premium parts and slowly dial it in. It can be months of time, if one does it right.
High end audio can be and generally is a ridiculously time consuming job with a requirement of extreme capacity in skills and whatnot.. with little room for reward at the end (re sales and the like).
basically start with the vidsonix virtual crossover boxes, then move to the same but done as a 3/8ths mdf board with strategically located quality binding posts and ground runs, for a test system/board.
then move to the premium parts on the test board, then move to the more final design and arrangement/layout of the premium parts, and then finalize it all in a single finished package, and then it's the final test run with the gear to be issued as product. Fixing any mistakes found, along the way.
Or something like that. It's a long process - to do it right.
Or, the area of adjustment overlap. How linear and stable the drivers are in the crossover range, and how much overlap there is in the given frequency ranges. It’s an ugly task that takes time to master and it is all compromise, compromise, compromise.
A digital crossover is all compromise as well, with the major fault of being severely quality limited (brick walled) before you even begin. Best not go there.
So we’re left with active analog and passive crossovers, for those who seek quality in their gear.
As for costs, yes it gets quite expensive.
First, one can get to a linear space or place or minimal agreement spot, with inexpensive components....and then venture into the pile of expensive parts to test via. Then slowly zero in on the right spot, the best compromise. Zobels can be important, in my experience. lightly applied zobels, not over-damped zobels, can make a difference. I have a pair of those passive adjustable crossover boxes, which can really help in the initial stages. then add in expensive parts, then add in the premium parts and slowly dial it in. It can be months of time, if one does it right.
High end audio can be and generally is a ridiculously time consuming job with a requirement of extreme capacity in skills and whatnot.. with little room for reward at the end (re sales and the like).
basically start with the vidsonix virtual crossover boxes, then move to the same but done as a 3/8ths mdf board with strategically located quality binding posts and ground runs, for a test system/board.
then move to the premium parts on the test board, then move to the more final design and arrangement/layout of the premium parts, and then finalize it all in a single finished package, and then it's the final test run with the gear to be issued as product. Fixing any mistakes found, along the way.
Or something like that. It's a long process - to do it right.