Single way or multiway

@bache wrote:

@Phusis     Respect you opinion , but looks like you disagree  with Dr. Gauder or did not read above post, you can see more at https://gauderakustik.com/

Basically I'm not in a disagreement with Mr. Gauder - certainly not what he points to about the essentials behind going multiway, which is fairly straightforward and common knowledge in speaker design btw., and something that shouldn't need his doctoriel status to get through. 

What I attempted to elucidate was that of seeing the strengths from using a crossover-less widebander, mainly that it's a single point source per channel (but also and not least, which I didn't get into earlier, that there's no passive XO parts between the amp and driver), as an inspiration or important reminder in designing a multi-way speaker. Using multiple drivers dedicated to different frequency bands is typically a design necessity, but by its nature also a design challenge; you don't, or rather you shouldn't want a multiway speaker to sound like distinct, different driver elements nor that it is spatially inhibited compared to what a widebander/single point source is capable of. By the same token using what's usually a passive crossover is a design necessity to facilitate the frequency divisions, but it's far from desirably placed between the amp and drivers where it messes with the interfacing between them, not to mention its inherent sonic "contributions" and limitations. Then there's the choice of crossover points and where to place them, the choice of driver type (dynamic, ESL, direct radiating, acoustic transformer/horn, etc.) and what it affords in crossover point positioning (if any with ESL's), the size of the speaker design, etc.

I'm not as much interested in a wideband driver as the fact that it's a single point source, with all that entails. I'm not as much interested in a crossover-less speaker design as the fact that there's no passive crossover between the amp and driver. I'm not as much interested in large, multiway high efficiency horns than the fact they provide better, effortless dynamics, dispersion control, etc. And so on. Get it? Take a fittingly large Synergy Horn design with multiple, frequency divided drivers loading their shared horn flare actively configured, and now you have a single point source per channel that isn't frequency nor SPL limited and that has no crossover - between the amp and drivers, that is. Take a 4-way horn-loaded speaker design like the one I use that only has a single crossover point in a some 7 octave span and that has a uniform dispersion pattern at this crossover point - actively configured. There are ways to minimize the negative impact of going multiway, while conversely taking advantage of what it can provide with different, frequency divided driver elements. That's what I was trying to get across. 

The design concept (single driver, multiple driver/planar, horn, dynamic, etc.) is not important.  It is the execution of the design concept in the design control, design transfer, and manufacturing process that is critical to sound quality.  Each design concept will have unique characteristics, strengths, and weaknesses which we may be more or less sensitive to.  For example, I have never warmed up to the sound of any single driver speaker I have heard, but do acknowledge their exceptional coherence through the range they reproduce.  I have heard multi driver speakers where I hear each driver’s characteristic (not a good thing) and others that are as coherent as single driver speakers, but extending further in both ends of the frequency spectrum.   The conclusion, there is no right or wrong.  It depends on execution of the design intent and our personal sound quality preferences.  

I suppose most don't fret about their passive crossovers since the loudspeakers they've chosen provide contentment. The importance of knowing the specs of one's speakers and providing sympathetic amplification mitigates most issues. I've not seen empirical evidence that provides universal superiority of minimalist passive or active crossovers vs more complex crossovers. Speaker designers  are pretty sophisticated these days, have many drivers, crossover components to choose from, based on listeners experience I trust they know what they're doing. If what you propose is clearly superior don't you think they'd go down this path?

Bache, not sure what you are trying to achieve with this post. As A manufacturer, I would normally assume that you would try to achieve a broadband reasonably flat curve doing little harm as possible to phasing... Not the case? I also look at keeping impedance swings flat as possible. In crossovers, I do prefer to keep part counts down, but if a 3rd or 4th order is needed for driver protection or to preserve phasing, then yes, I would use higher orders. I can only guess that the 10th order slopes that you quote are trying to achieve a brick wall effect to have an absolute start & stop frequency. I hope that you would know those benefits. I've tried very steep slopes and always preferred standard 6 to 24 DB slopes. However, well done brick slopes in active crossovers can be great. 

I grew up using speakers that were no more than 8” full range drivers with wizzer cones attached.  Then I bought some ADS 300’s. Tiny two way speakers with a big sound. Then came my first subwoofer and a separate active crossover to fill in the bottom.  Essentially making my system a three way. Much later came the DQ-10’s with their 5 way crossovers.  When I added the sub and crossover it became a 6 way speaker system. Now,  I have a 3.5 way and a sub. 
I bet the crossover’s in the Amati’s cost more than my first few systems combined!

I sure have come a long way in my journey.