2. speakers
  3. 1113252618

First Order Crossovers: Pros and Cons

I wonder if some folks might share their expertise on the question of crossover design. I'm coming around to the view that this is perhaps the most significant element of speaker design yet I really know very little about it and don't really understand the basic principles. Several of the speakers I have heard in my quest for full range floorstanders are "first order" designs. I have really enjoyed their sound but do not know if this is attributable primarily to the crossover design or to a combination of other factors as well. In addition, I have heard that, for example, because of the use of this crossover configuration on the Vandersteen 5 one has to sit at least 10 feet away from the speakers in order for the drivers to properly mesh. Is this really true and if so why? Another brand also in contention is the Fried Studio 7 which also uses a first order design. Same issue? Could someone share in laymans terms the basic principles of crossover design and indicate the advantages and disadvantages of each. Also, what designers are making intelligent choices in trying to work around the problems associated with crossover design? Thanks for your input.
dodgealum
breginatod92b
6 posts
 
Karl,Roy&Skrivis:SERIES v PARALLEL 1st Order XO, What are the pos&cons of each in a two way and three way system also in a three way what is more important the T&M or the M&W interface?Would a HEIL be suitable for a 1st order tweeter if OX at about 3k with the new PEERLESS 134 HDS NOMEX paper cone? And A BIG THANK YOU GUYS for a great thread.

Thanks,
Ben
skrivis
30 posts
 
There's some disagreement on the benefits of series vs. parallel. I feel series is superior, but I'm not the last word on things. :-)

You can find a fair bit of info on the net about series and parallel crossovers. Rod Elliott has some good info, for example. http://sound.westhost.com/parallel-series.htm

I don't see that you can say that either the W/M or M/T interface is more important. Both will affect the operation of the mid driver, and that's where your ears are most sensitive.

I don't know enough about the Heil to render an opinion, sorry.
gregm
3,021 posts
 
As per Skrivis, my own (unsollicited) opinion would be slightly in favour of a series -- IF you can easily get the drivers' electrical parametres VERY close (or near identical). Again, I'm just a hobbyist -- not a professional.

As to the Heil, 3kHz seems quite high -- which model are you using? As I know nothing about the Peerless, I really can't offer an opinion as to that particular match.
However, the Heil is dipole, so are you considering a 3-way with an open baffle mid -- or are you going closed cab after the Heil? If so, getting your system radiation pattern acceptable 3kHz downward could be a bit tricky!

ASAIK, the guy who makes "Heil" speakers crosses his AMT's about two octaves lower onto an upward firing peerless (quite a big unit if I remember correctly...). Frankly speaking the result is excellent down to the peerless: then things get a bit messy BUT that's just my opinion.
Cheers
Cheers
gregm
3,021 posts
 
Ooops, no "edit" function anymore. Well, the BIG Heil is dipole, of course, the other one has a back chamber...
trelja
3,215 posts
 
Skrivis, I must applaud you on the link you provided!

Also, along with the series crossover being "self correcting" in terms of driver variation, it exhibits the same characteristics for variances in the crossover components. For example, as we know, using a 5% capacitor in the network can result in a fair bit of variation from speaker to speaker. While painstaking matching of all components is a solution, the cost effects (time, testing, and parts) cannot be dismissed. The series network yields some very positive advantages here.

However, as the article points out, in the end, there is no free lunch. But, we have always known that and come to this conclusion for a lot of things. Otherwise, there wouldn't need to be much variation in crossover design.
More to discover