High order crossovers


Do or can high order crossovers rob a speaker system of more dynamics?
koestner
What it comes down to is that a well-design speaker can sound amazing... Thiel on one end and Joseph Audio on the other, both really dynamic and "alive"
@audiokinesis, "Sorry but I must disagree that there is a correlation between parts count and how difficult a speaker is to drive."

I don’t see myself at RMAF this year, but share your warm sentiments, Duke. It’s been too long since we’ve gotten together, and would love to see you and your wife again. Hope you’re both doing well!

I’m thankful this topic has opened up an interesting discussion. However, disagreement obviously does not mean disproven. Could you shed a bit more insight into how you landed on your assertion, and potentially provide some specifics, please? Obviously, from my time at Fried and your designs, we’ve arrived at different places.

@prof, "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."

Two things, Rich. First, if you don’t consider 140 wpc of tube power A LOT, we are about apart as two people can get. I’ve had a lot of tube amplifiers in my system, and once they rise above 60 wpc coming from at least 4 output tubes per channel, I’ve most definitely reached the serious power and slam territory. I should clarify that with several of the loudspeakers I used which implement first order crossovers, I produce the sort of dynamics that has people just about jump out of their skin with 10 - 35 wpc tube amplifiers.

Secondly, although I have the highest level of respect for Jim Thiel and his designs, few have ever been as famously unsympathetic towards amplifier designers. Along those lines, I have nothing untoward that position, and in fact, respect his conviction. Your Thiels can most assuredly produce dynamics, but require amplification that can also just about serve welding needs to do so. A simplified crossover would change that, without question. Again, I do not question Jim Thiel. His design choices produced exceptional loudspeakers with may notable qualities, and the success of his venture testifies to that. Just that ease of drive was never one of them.

Thank you for providing the reviews for the JA loudspeakers. Note the comments from Atkinson come from partnering the speaker with MBL and Pass Labs amplifiers, again something different than what I consider the demands of a first order crossover.

Finally, as an actual example to illustrate my point of the impact the slope crossover imparts on the loudspeaker’s friendliness to an amplifier, I will bring up the PSB Gold i and the Vandersteen 2. Both speakers come close in their drive complement and stated sensitivity, and differ in the choices implemented by their respective and very talented, very successful desigers. Richard Vandersteen staked his claim on first order crossovers, Paul Barton employs steeper slopes. I do not imply it’s an apples to apples first order vs higher order crossover comparison, but I definitely think we have two end products that we can put in a drag race for our discussion here. The Vandersteen 2 attained as much popularity as any loudspeaker in the past generation, partly because they present a friendly load to an incredibly wide swath of amplifiers and so implicitly have a huge potential customer base. The Gold i, while also selling into the thousands present a surprisingly tough load. When I sold them would only come alive with the brute force Carver Lightstar amplifiers, though would come close to knocking walls down with them. That’s dynamics, but again, with huge demands. Not even the big Adcom monoblocks could wake them from what I considered slumber. As the HEA market pivoted towards tube amplifiers over the past 20 years, the ubiquity of the Gold i collapsed.

Again, crossover slope absolutely rob dynamics. Substantially so
Which is better, red wine or white? Bourbon or single malt?

Crossover comes down to integration.

There are no flawless drivers. The designer must make decisions as to whether the 4k bump in the woofer/mid is tolerable or not. He may choose to live with it as low order summing floats his boat.

First order sum nicely but do little to manage driver flaws and absolutely nothing for time coherence.

Like all things audio, crossover BS is waist deep. Reading some manufacturer's material is funnier than the comics.

Trelja wrote: "Could you shed a bit more insight into how you landed on your assertion, and potentially provide some specifics, please?"

I assume this is the assertion you’re talking about: "I disagree that there is a correlation between parts count and how difficult a speaker is to drive."

Well my wording was imprecise; here is what I should have said: "I do not think there is a causal relationship between crossover parts count and how difficult a speaker is to drive." (There can be a correlation without causation.)

I have designed many speakers specifically to work well with high-damping-factor tube amps (such as the Atma-Sphere S-30 mentioned above). Here are four things that make for good synergy between such amps and a speaker: High efficiency; fairly high impedance curve; fairly smooth impedance curve; and if the impedance curve is not smooth, then the target frequency response should take the amplifier’s output impedance into account.

Smoothing an impedance curve calls for additional crossover parts. I have tried it both ways: Tailoring the response specifically for the high-output-impedance tube amp and not caring what the impedance curve looks like; and using additional crossover parts to smooth the impedance curve. Not only is the latter sonically superior when done right (in my opinion as the crossover designer), it also results in compatibility with a much wider range of amplifiers.

Most of my work is in prosound. Among other things, I build high-end bass guitar cabs. Many of my designs use bypassable notch filters for response shaping to give the bassist at least two distinctly different voicings from the same cab. With the notch filters bypassed (via a switch on the back of the cab), there is no filtering of any kind on the woofer. I do not hear any difference in dynamics between filters engaged and filters bypassed. But more significantly, neither do any of my customers, to the best of my knowledge. However what my customers CAN hear is, the cab starting to compress at high power levels, regardless of how the switches are set. So this is anecdotal evidence that thermal effects have a more audible impact on dynamics than crossover parts do (at least at the quality level of the crossover parts in my bass cabs).

I am friends with a recording engineer who has asked me not to drop his name. He has for decades been testing the dynamic compression of various loudspeakers that he has had access to. What he looks for is, how much does the speaker compress the peaks? This would be a short-term effect, which has not been studied in nearly as much depth as have long-term compression effects. (Had an interesting exchange with Floyd Toole on the subject once - details if you’d like.)

Anyway my recording engineer friend sets the volume to his reference level and then hits the speaker with what should be a 20 dB peak, to see if the speaker delivers the full 20 dB. Most deliver less, maybe 16 or 17 dB. A few deliver the full 20 dB. His observation is that loudspeaker efficiency is the best predictor. And among those speakers with less efficiency that still do well, power handling tends to be unusually high. This doesn’t PROVE that crossover type and/or parts count makes less of a difference than power compression, but it does indicate pretty good correlation between good dynamics and drivers that are just loafing along.

Note I would agree that, all else being equal, a time-coherent loudspeaker should have superior dynamics because the fundamentals and overtones are all arriving at exactly the same instant. Time-coherence implies first-order acoustic crossovers, if we’re talking about passive loudspeakers. A first order electrical filter doesn’t necessarily give us a true first order acoustic rolloff, so to achieve that target response, additional crossover parts are usually required.

Driver compression mechanisms (thermal, mechanical, flux modulation) are documented. They are real. I cannot think of anything about a series crossover that would mitigate any of these effects. I’ve owned two Frieds and spent a fair amount of time with an IMF speaker, and imo they didn’t begin to compete with the likes of Klipsch Heritage Series in dynamics (though they were imo superior in other areas). A first-order series crossover topology may be the theoretical ideal from a dynamic range standpoint (assuming it results in true time coherence), but if driver compression effects dominate, it may not matter very much.

@trelja, can you tell me what the actual mechanisms are by which crossover parts count and/or conventional crossover topologies constrain dynamics? There may be effects I’m unaware of that are worth taking into account, even if they aren’t necessarily the primary cause of compression.  You may be correct that a steep crossover slope constrains dynamics, but can you tell me why?   The "why's" interest me a great deal. 

Thanks!

Duke