PB2 said:
I used to sell them if that counts for anything. Vandersteen has successfully marketed his speakers by touting the superiority of time accuracy. IMHO time accuracy is way down the list in terms of importance. What he gives up to achieve time accuracy is far more important that what is gained. YMMV.
I've not heard Vandersteens lately; but back in the day, when I did, they were very musical, did all things well, and had an unusually spacious sense to the image. At a very reasonable price.
There are a lot of ways to make good speakers; in the end, a matching set of techniques that the designer is familiar with, so that the designer can use the strengths and avoid the pitfalls of that particular approach may be most important.
First order crossovers can have a second pole about an octave or so away from the crossover slope. And a third pole another octave away. The multislope approach was popularized by Thiele, although others used it as well. The multislope is easier to realize with reasonable drivers than a true first order .
There are a lot of ways to make good speakers; in the end, a matching set of techniques that the designer is familiar with, so that the designer can use the strengths and avoid the pitfalls of that particular approach may be most important.
First order crossovers can have a second pole about an octave or so away from the crossover slope. And a third pole another octave away. The multislope approach was popularized by Thiele, although others used it as well. The multislope is easier to realize with reasonable drivers than a true first order .
blablabla
Hi,
what a bunch of blablabla
in that article!
Wether 6dB electrically or not is definitively not the prob. The prob is what´s output acoustically by the driver with regard to frequency- and phaseresponse (i.e. time behaviour). To get a certain behaviour acoustically the crossover´s and driver´s behaviour are superpositioned. Which shows that general statements like ´6dB ist best´ are utterly rubbish. I do agree that a designer should aim to use as little parts count as possible, but that doesn´t necessarely mean 1!
I disagree strongly with the superiority claim for passive crossovers.
Most people compare apples and pees. A passive crossover is in nearly each and every case not just a crossover, but always a crossover with integrated equalizer, whereas most active crossovers are just that..a crossover. As a crossover they work superior to passive networks, but the missing equalization leads to a sonic difference against passive crossovers. This and I´m convinced only this, can make a pasive crossover a better choice.
Adding equalizing features to an active crossover -apart from handling this is the big advantage of some digital crossovers- restores the superiority of active crossovers.
Another point I strongly disagree, is the part about planars. Seldomely read such rubbish.
I´m so happy that marketing doesn´t defy physics, otherwise we would probabely already been blasted into space
jauuu
Calvin
Hi,
what a bunch of blablabla
in that article!Wether 6dB electrically or not is definitively not the prob. The prob is what´s output acoustically by the driver with regard to frequency- and phaseresponse (i.e. time behaviour). To get a certain behaviour acoustically the crossover´s and driver´s behaviour are superpositioned. Which shows that general statements like ´6dB ist best´ are utterly rubbish. I do agree that a designer should aim to use as little parts count as possible, but that doesn´t necessarely mean 1!
I disagree strongly with the superiority claim for passive crossovers.
Most people compare apples and pees. A passive crossover is in nearly each and every case not just a crossover, but always a crossover with integrated equalizer, whereas most active crossovers are just that..a crossover. As a crossover they work superior to passive networks, but the missing equalization leads to a sonic difference against passive crossovers. This and I´m convinced only this, can make a pasive crossover a better choice.
Adding equalizing features to an active crossover -apart from handling this is the big advantage of some digital crossovers- restores the superiority of active crossovers.
Another point I strongly disagree, is the part about planars. Seldomely read such rubbish.
I´m so happy that marketing doesn´t defy physics, otherwise we would probabely already been blasted into space
jauuu
Calvin
Ehh, take it for what it's worth. A successful designer explaining his approach; there are others. Not all the reasons for his good results are from specific design characteristics; good ears, persistence, and the means and will to compare to live, persistence, painstaking attention to the myriad details that add up in the final result, and persistence.
It is much more difficult to design a good speaker system with inexpensive drivers. The early Vandersteens and the Spicas of that era did so, and made a lot of people with budget constraints very happy. I'd suggest that rather than rudimentary engineering, it was design of the highest order. (BTW, that Audax tweeter was less than $12 in small OEM quantities.)
Phase issues are difficult. It may be that, like Doppler distortion or flutter, people differ greatly in their ability to hear it. John Atkinson, summing up his years of experience measuring many, many loudspeakers, did not find a strong correlation between good phase characteristics and good sound, although he had originally expected to. It may be that careful attention to the phase characteristics is just part of careful attention to many crossover/voicing issues, and that careful attention is the ultimate reason for success. And I'd agree that low order crossovers demand the use of well behaved drivers, both in and out of band, and that may be part of the reason for the success of low order designs. The "Infinite Slope" systems (sorry, forgot the current name of the company) use a very different approach, with very narrow crossover regions; I believe they copped "Best Sound of Show" awards a couple of times.
I designed active crossovers that were used in integrated professional sound system speakers. Two or three amplifiers and an active crossover in the speaker box. The crossovers could be up to sixth order, and substantial delay correction was needed to compensate for the physical offset of the horn diaphragms. At the high efficiency needed for the application, let alone the cost,size, and weight requirements, passive crossovers were simply not a consideration. To land the contract, we had to win two or three "shootouts" for sound quality, but even so, sound quality was not necessarily the foremost consideration.
For home systems, with totally different requirements, the cost of multiple amplifiers is a major burden, and sound/cost/looks are the prime considerations. So I don't find it very helpful to compare active to passive crossovers; each has its place, without a lot of overlap.
I agree very strongly with the comments about the backwave reflections. I've found that felting the front face of the magnet (after taking other measures) does help.
When crossovers are spoken of as whatever order, it is (or should be) that that refers to the resultant acoustic slope; and rare indeed is the driver that lets you achieve an accurate first order slope with one component. (Seven for a good mid; one each high and low rolloff, 3 for LF resonance compensation, and two for HF inductance snubbing.)
So, rambling back to the door we came in; Richard Vandersteen has designed several very successful speaker systems, and attention should be paid. For designers with different goals and requirements, the salient points may differ, but there are enough points made in the interview that there should be something for everyone.
It is much more difficult to design a good speaker system with inexpensive drivers. The early Vandersteens and the Spicas of that era did so, and made a lot of people with budget constraints very happy. I'd suggest that rather than rudimentary engineering, it was design of the highest order. (BTW, that Audax tweeter was less than $12 in small OEM quantities.)
Phase issues are difficult. It may be that, like Doppler distortion or flutter, people differ greatly in their ability to hear it. John Atkinson, summing up his years of experience measuring many, many loudspeakers, did not find a strong correlation between good phase characteristics and good sound, although he had originally expected to. It may be that careful attention to the phase characteristics is just part of careful attention to many crossover/voicing issues, and that careful attention is the ultimate reason for success. And I'd agree that low order crossovers demand the use of well behaved drivers, both in and out of band, and that may be part of the reason for the success of low order designs. The "Infinite Slope" systems (sorry, forgot the current name of the company) use a very different approach, with very narrow crossover regions; I believe they copped "Best Sound of Show" awards a couple of times.
I designed active crossovers that were used in integrated professional sound system speakers. Two or three amplifiers and an active crossover in the speaker box. The crossovers could be up to sixth order, and substantial delay correction was needed to compensate for the physical offset of the horn diaphragms. At the high efficiency needed for the application, let alone the cost,size, and weight requirements, passive crossovers were simply not a consideration. To land the contract, we had to win two or three "shootouts" for sound quality, but even so, sound quality was not necessarily the foremost consideration.
For home systems, with totally different requirements, the cost of multiple amplifiers is a major burden, and sound/cost/looks are the prime considerations. So I don't find it very helpful to compare active to passive crossovers; each has its place, without a lot of overlap. I agree very strongly with the comments about the backwave reflections. I've found that felting the front face of the magnet (after taking other measures) does help.
When crossovers are spoken of as whatever order, it is (or should be) that that refers to the resultant acoustic slope; and rare indeed is the driver that lets you achieve an accurate first order slope with one component. (Seven for a good mid; one each high and low rolloff, 3 for LF resonance compensation, and two for HF inductance snubbing.)
So, rambling back to the door we came in; Richard Vandersteen has designed several very successful speaker systems, and attention should be paid. For designers with different goals and requirements, the salient points may differ, but there are enough points made in the interview that there should be something for everyone.
Re: blablabla
You can't generalize, because there's no general statement.
When well done and with the right drivers, it is better.
It is not an easy task at all, and who thinks that a decent 1st order crossover is easy to make is very wrong.
Because it won't work with 99% of the drivers.
The mid driver has to go high, and with good dispersion, so that you can cross the high quality and low FS tweeter several octaves above it's FS frequency.
For any dome tweeter this means 10K and above.
And the mid must go there with good dispersion.
That's the hard part!
If you know a driver that does this, contact me!
The old Epos midwoofers (they are almost fullranges) did this beautifully, naturally, and filled a great soundstage, but they don't sell them. And no crossover!
Calvin said:
You can't generalize, because there's no general statement.
When well done and with the right drivers, it is better.
It is not an easy task at all, and who thinks that a decent 1st order crossover is easy to make is very wrong.
Because it won't work with 99% of the drivers.
The mid driver has to go high, and with good dispersion, so that you can cross the high quality and low FS tweeter several octaves above it's FS frequency.
For any dome tweeter this means 10K and above.
And the mid must go there with good dispersion.
That's the hard part!
If you know a driver that does this, contact me!
The old Epos midwoofers (they are almost fullranges) did this beautifully, naturally, and filled a great soundstage, but they don't sell them. And no crossover!
it remains rubbish ;-)
Hi,
using the ´right drivers´ leads in most cases to an 3rd order acoustical response, sometimes even higher order. And the only response that counts is the acoustical response. And this response can be achieved with filters from 0 to xx order electrically, depending on the drivers parameters. But the only way to achieve a first order slope with an first order filter would mean to use a absolutely linear working fullrange driver (H=1). With regard to this, I still claim that a first order filter (electrically) doesn´t mean to be the best filter in general.
jauu
Calvin
Hi,
using the ´right drivers´ leads in most cases to an 3rd order acoustical response, sometimes even higher order. And the only response that counts is the acoustical response. And this response can be achieved with filters from 0 to xx order electrically, depending on the drivers parameters. But the only way to achieve a first order slope with an first order filter would mean to use a absolutely linear working fullrange driver (H=1). With regard to this, I still claim that a first order filter (electrically) doesn´t mean to be the best filter in general.
jauu
Calvin
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.