Time coherence - how important and what speakers?

I'm not sure about the Vandersteens, but, I do think some of Jim Thiel's crossovers are quite complex. I suspect his goal of amplitude coherence has something to do with this. I suspect that the complexity of his cross-overs is what accounts for the low yet narrow impedance of his speakers. Have you ever seen the one Thiel used in the CS-5. Some have criticized him for this, complaining that his cross-overs suck the energy out of the performance and add a veil to the sound. Yet others critcize his products for being too "analytical" and "clinical" sounding. Go figure? Of course due the the mechanical cross-over nature of some of his new co-axial drivers, the electrical crossovers have simplified. On the other side of the spectrum I think that the Meadowlark offerings use a different set of priorities and accomplish their results with a simpler crossover. Mind you I enjoy all of the above manufacturers products. In as much as one can readibly identify from whose pen what product came from, I still think they have more in common than not. To me, there is something that just sounds more "right" about them.

Look at a Vandersteen crossover and decide for yourself. There is a lot more to the crossover than most other speakers. As for being complex, I have always thought the more pieces parts the more the complexity. You can get a glimpse on his website.

The simplest electrical crossover on a speaker is an inductor placed in series to the woofer, and a capacitor to the tweeter. The amplifier drives into both simultaneously. If they are perfectly equal and opposite in "reactance", then they cancel out, as far as the amplifier is concerned. This cancellation is what makes this the only dividing network without time-delay distortion.

This is a first-order network. Its two components can be used only when the drivers and cabinet designs are "perfect".

Not bloody likely.

More complex circuits are usually required, whether using two or ten more parts. The result can still be a "measured" first-order acoustic rolloff. The extra parts "modify" driver non-linearities and "make up" for cabinet reflections. Which they cannot- but they can fool the microphone. Of course, extra circuit-parts cannot be perfect either. Reductions in transparency and dynamics are givens.

To keep the number of crossover parts to the barest minimum, one has to use the most linear drivers- which are relatively few. However, not that few: specific examples include tweeters from Morel, Dynaudio, Foster, Stage Accompany, Pioneer TAD, and Scanspeak. Certain mids from Audax, Eton, Davis Acoustics, Bandor, Jordan, Foster, Peerless and Aurasound. Specific woofers from Scanspeak, Davis, PHL Audio, Volt, Audax, Peerless, Pioneer and Aurasound. There are others.

And every one of them is far more expensive than the drivers used in most designs.

For a commercial designer who wants to use the simplest crossover, it's hard to find the best drivers under deadline conditions. But by using the most linear drivers, within proper cabinetwork and correct bandwidths, the crossover circuit can be reduced to just a handful of parts, for clarity and for time coherence. The converse is entirely true.

Best,
Roy

Roy great response...I was just thinking about this the other day...the real challenge in a time/phase design is not the crossover...its building the entire darn thing in a proper manner to use a first order network...in short...all your ducks must be in a row...and this can be applied to any "minimal" crossover network as well...a good design isnt enough...it has to be well executed with quality componets,etc...which is why I assume so many DIY speakers sound like crap...it is much more than simply throwing off the shelf drivers in a box and hoping for the best...I am constantly surprised at how many think they can outsmart engineers...even those with hi quality gear that like to perform their own mods....

Also..Roy...could you shed some light on the correlation between a wide dispersion pattern and time/phase integrity?
Secondly...I believe it was Joseph from JA who brought up a valid point in what I assume was in defensive to his designs(which I dont own)...that is...if time/phase accuracy is indeed retained...why do all time/phase coherent speakers sound different? I know you are a busy man...and this is not intended as a set-up question...I am just curious...thanks for all your informative replies...