Selah Audio for ex-DIYer.

[navin]

Originally Posted by ScottG

the selection of crossover parts (for a passive design).
Note (..I also think that on a parts-cost basis Selah Audio kits are good value).

The only thing that tends to concern me on kits in general are passive crossover parts selection. I prefer to see a passive crossover that is typically equal-to or more expensive than the drivers. In fact looking at a grouping of "good" designs for something "better" - this is often a pretty big factor.

Scott,

Many years ago (early 90s) I was visiting a rather well known speaker designer. In his lab I saw a rather simple 6" 2 way speaker half finished. I was surprised that there was a electrolytic cap in the tweeter circuit so obviously I asked. He said the cap's sonics were part of the design and when he removed the electrotytic and replaced it with a "esoteric" cap of the same value the speaker did loose it's "danceability". After that experience I dont question methods of people who know far more than I do. There is a method in their madness. In the end it is the music that matters.

This designer has designed speakers using everything from simple Elac tweeters to ones using ScanSpeak, B&G, and RAAL. In fact it was in his shop (on a later occasion) that I first heard the B&G Neo 8 and Neo 3 as well as the first RAAL.

Originally Posted by RockLeeEV

If I might suggest something, I would strongly consider building a CBT36

I have not heard this speaker (then again I have not heard any of Zaphs's, Troels's Salk's or Selah's designs) but it's WAF is low.

[ScottG]

Originally Posted by navin

Scott,

..After that experience I don't question methods of people who know far more than I do. There is a method in their madness. .

But shouldn't you question it? It is ultimately part of the design.

Perhaps a better way to explain it is: are you certain the the designer in question is far more experienced in this admittedly esoteric area of the design? (..just a good flat-on-axis response seems to be de rigueur of most designers, some paying more attention to a broader polar response, but few to the variety of possibilities with crossover parts.)

For instance it's only been within the past 4-5 years or so that Troels has really experimented with this area. If you read his comments *really* closely his previous view-point was largely that it didn't matter. However as he progressed further, with a greater variety of associated equipment - equipment he felt was better (in various ways), he now clearly believes that it can make a substantial difference. (..again though, all depending on the quality of associated equipment.)

Of course none of this is to say that a loudspeaker's crossover should be more expensive, but rather has the designer tried a significant variety of parts substitution with a significant variety of associated equipment? Also, were the parts "burned-in" when doing so?


Again though, just something to think about.

[navin]

Originally Posted by ScottG

Perhaps a better way to explain it is: are you certain the the designer in question is far more experienced in this admittedly esoteric area of the design?

Maybe you have a point. I was only refering to the speaker designs that guys Salk, Craig, Murphy, Richie, Bagby, Zaph, Troels and Tony Gee produce today.

What I was tying to say that sometimes (if not often) the designer knows the limitation of a crossover component. I agree that usually the compromise is made because the designer has to meet a price point. But many designers work around these limitations - they design speakers becuase they love to. Speaker design does not pay like Banking, Technology, etc.. do those in it are usually there because their passion for this hobby/art drives them.

Finally, it is the music that matters. I dont worry if the speaker is neutral or coloured so much. I like a speaker if it can get me to dance, get my toes to tap and involve me in the performance.