How good is the crossover in your loudspeakers?

@erik_squires Exactly.

Electrolytics are usually chosen for cost considerations, but sometimes they're there for a good reason.

When I rebuilt my crossovers I pulled out those big caps, which tested fine (predictably), so I mounted them right back.

I'm curious, are folks experimenting with tantalums in your crossovers?

@curiousjim Wrote:

There’s no doubt that an active crossover is better than a passive one.  But why then do so few active crossovers exist?  And why do so few speaker companies even offer them? I have an old ARC crossover that I had set at 100hz and it made a huge difference with some electrostatic speakers I have. 

When I bought my speakers the manufacturer gave you the option to buy the active crossover and bypass the passive crossover in the speakers. Two years later I bought the active crossover. With the active crossover the sound quality was way above the passive crossover see here last page bi-amplification. @russbutton is correct. 

Mike

@texbychoice wrote:

Russbutton describes an active crossover providing signal to an amplifier for each driver.  For a three driver speaker, three separate amps required.  Six amps total for a typical 2 channel system.  That is increased complication. In no way is replacing a passive crossover with that an equal exchange.

Ask yourself what a passive crossover, not least a complex one, does with the amp to driver interfacing as it actually impedes with the power transfer with all that entails with lesser driver control. And then ask yourself what a dedicated, frequency limited amp channel directly connected to each driver section does by comparison. Any which way you want to bend this the former scenario is the real complexity and hindrance; not merely adding up on amp channel in parallel count actively for what’s already described. 

Numerous paths to problems include more connection points, more cabling, higher parts count=less reliable, multiple paths for EMI/RFI, matching amps to drivers, level adjustment for each driver to name a few. 

Forest for the trees; per earlier paragraph of mine, adding up on amp channels is just that, and they’re working less hard to boot - meaning they’re less likely to fail. Level adjustment actively is the far better and easier option vs. using resistors and trying to match driver sensitivity passively. And, paradoxically, why so many get riled up about amp matching actively boggles the mind. The real need for amp matching is with passively configured speakers, as the harder load they present to the amps makes the amps sound much more different with different speakers. Matching amps to drivers actively is a potential bonus, but no one tells you to. Using the same amp topology/brand top to bottom into the subs to my mind is the preferred scenario. 

The power transfer from amp to each driver is not vastly improved. 

Yes it is, the more so the more complex/load heavy the passive crossover.

A passive crossover does not consume unreasonable power as has been implied either.

Again, depending on the the complexity of the XO, it most certainly can.  

No doubt Class D amps will be recommended.  This recommended path is supposed to produce superior sound quality, right.  Six cheap Class D amps are the exact opposite of quality and reliability.  Better have a couple spares on hand at all times.

Outboard actively any amp topology can be had. Bundled active speakers usually resort to Class D amps, but they also come in different qualities where reliability needn’t be an issue. 

If an individual wishes to pursue active crossover, DSP, multiple amps, etc. that is just as acceptable as improving a passive crossover.  However, fact is the active path is not as simple or vastly superior as the claims made in this thread.  Pick your poison.

If you choose to go about a DIY-approach with active and filter settings, then no - it’s not plug and play. The fact of the matter is though that you have the more optimal outset with the amp to driver interfacing actively, and sitting in the listening with a laptop and doing filter settings on the fly is vastly preferred vs. running back and forth with a soldering iron replacing filter components. Pick the poison, or the nutritious meal that’s good for your tummy ;) 

I have been a GR follower for some time and did choose to install the Magnepan LRS+ kit of parts he sells and I'm happy with the result. Better top-end, more definition  - just  "nicer" to listen to and no more $2 fuse in the signal path. It is no secret that Magnepan choose to now offer most of their range in an "X" version, with vastly improved (and costly) crossover components, so it seems both see a market for these types of upgrades.

As Danny points out and I'd tend to agree - many companies build their speakers to a price point, and a glossy wood grained exterior seems to sell better than a fancy crossover - the latter often seems to get the accountants eye the most. Even a cheap but well designed crossover can measure good, but a simple measurement does not have anywhere the discernment of the human ear. 

A good quality crossover can significantly increase the cost to build in a cheaper speaker and this is why we often get what Danny refers to as "cheesy" parts.

I'm on the side of better parts matter - not all will agree of course!