@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
