How does a person design based on opinion if they wish to use conventional engineering based on evidence? My first active crossover was in the late 70s when they didn't make much sense financially but I wanted to play with integrated circuits to get some experience. Today I find it hard to understand why so many hobbyists opt for passive crossovers but each to their own. Nonetheless a few years back I thought it would be fun to get a bit of practical experience with passive crossovers for a party/garage speaker I was contemplating. I had a quick look for data on the non-linearities of the components in order to assess and simulate what may or may not be worth paying for. Guess what I found particularly for the more expensive components?
Expensive components and magical thinking are clearly an enjoyable part of the hobby for some. If you are inclined that way and away from science and engineering then I guess opinions from posters on forums with similar inclinations, websites and youtube videos from salesmen of those expensive components has value. The two outlooks are in competition though rather than complementary (i.e. genuinely subjective and objective views are complementary simply being different views of the same thing) because their basis is different. One builds on evidence that has proven true (or more strictly never been shown to be untrue) while the other seems (it varies between individuals) to assume something like little is known, everything can sound different, but that's not to do with how science says we perceive sound, unknown and unmeasureable differences between components are responsible for the perceived differences, everyone's opinion has value even the spivs telling obvious whoppers to shift product, experience rather than knowledge is what matters most, etc...
Designing and making speakers is of course a hobby and so go for what you find enjoyable but don't expect your views to be endorsed or even respected by all.
do a troels design a lot better the proac , I prefered scan speak driver ,actually are the best ,but your seas are really good....troels Xo I tested one and is really good better then my
This guy's business model seems to be.
1. Get the public to send in speakers.
2. Show that they are "faulty".
3. Sell "Upgrade kits" to "cure" the problems.
I have watched a number of these, I've posted Stereophile measured reviews that disagree with his measurements, and the links were removed. For instance he advocates a kit for about $730 to upgrade a $1200 speaker.
Just look at his measurements at time index 4:15 and compare them with Stereophiles. Other reviewers have also said that the originals are great value for the money.
https://www.stereophile.com/content/wharfedale-linton-heritage-loudspeaker-measurementsDYOR.
I heard Troel name from a mile and I know complaints on "snake oil" Jantzen caps will follow lol. While I have no doubt that low end cap and high end cap doesnt make any difference sound wise (and similarly with cables of course), I dont see any issues with Troel selecting to go exclusively with the costly caps. He got the commission from the manufacturer and have unlimited supply so he can focus on testing and building instead of worrying about the cost, why not? How's that difference from Madisound, Meniscus (they also offer "upgrade options"), CSS, Selah, Salk etc trying to make a living???
And how many times we buy things not necessarily because we need them but because we like the look and feel of it? Why we rave 2 inch baltic birch cabinet every time we see one (which is stupidly heavy and doesnt have any proof to be any better than 0.75 MDF) but then complain about caps? Why do we eat steak instead of just chicken breast which is cheaper and much better for your health?
--------
I'm just trying to say that of course having the best sound for the money is desirable but try to have some fun as well. If you just want good sound at lowest cost possible then Troel is definitely not a good fit, even DIY is not necessary the best option. Find an used pair of Elac DBR or Lsim703 or with Adam TV series and Neuman KH120 you dont even need to have an amp and they measure insanely well. Or even better value, find an used pair of DIY speakers and then you can have insanely good sound for a few cents giving the horrible resale value of DIY.
It seems you are already set on a Troel's design, my advice for you is:
- to go with the max quality and quantity (ie size) you can afford (both in money and listening space). If you start small, after a while you will most likely wanna upgrade and you will stuck with the dilemma of selling the current one at a huge loss having spent a ton of time and effort on it or having a redundant pair of speakers ( I have 5 pairs so I know the pain lol)
- at a certain level, the difference between the speakers are marginal and mostly in SPL and LF, so go with the design that look the best to you having met the max quality and quantity above. This applies to Troels or any other great designers speakers. I can guarantee if they design for flat FR + good directivity the sound will be very similar, you wont miss much going with any design you like
- save some money for dsp to correct room mode
These should be enough to keep you satisfy for ... half a year before you start to wonder about the next potential build lol
And how many times we buy things not necessarily because we need them but because we like the look and feel of it? Why we rave 2 inch baltic birch cabinet every time we see one (which is stupidly heavy and doesnt have any proof to be any better than 0.75 MDF) but then complain about caps? Why do we eat steak instead of just chicken breast which is cheaper and much better for your health?
--------
I'm just trying to say that of course having the best sound for the money is desirable but try to have some fun as well. If you just want good sound at lowest cost possible then Troel is definitely not a good fit, even DIY is not necessary the best option. Find an used pair of Elac DBR or Lsim703 or with Adam TV series and Neuman KH120 you dont even need to have an amp and they measure insanely well. Or even better value, find an used pair of DIY speakers and then you can have insanely good sound for a few cents giving the horrible resale value of DIY.
It seems you are already set on a Troel's design, my advice for you is:
- to go with the max quality and quantity (ie size) you can afford (both in money and listening space). If you start small, after a while you will most likely wanna upgrade and you will stuck with the dilemma of selling the current one at a huge loss having spent a ton of time and effort on it or having a redundant pair of speakers ( I have 5 pairs so I know the pain lol)
- at a certain level, the difference between the speakers are marginal and mostly in SPL and LF, so go with the design that look the best to you having met the max quality and quantity above. This applies to Troels or any other great designers speakers. I can guarantee if they design for flat FR + good directivity the sound will be very similar, you wont miss much going with any design you like
- save some money for dsp to correct room mode
These should be enough to keep you satisfy for ... half a year before you start to wonder about the next potential build lol
well you must try ...we are diy we have tens of years experience and we know the distortion on caps with test and by ears... and remenber condenser microphone
Dan,
Perhaps it was not the wisest to post that Danny Ritchie video, given all the nit picky negative comments. I thought his general message was good common sense about spending on crossover parts. Danny has his own forum on Audiocircle and perhaps it's just best to leave the comments there and not here.
Good luck finding a suitable Troel's project. You had seemed to be leaning to one of the CNO designs. As mentioned earlier, I have a similar speaker and really like it, having had it for years and years. But you certainly cannot go wrong with a Troels or Tony Gee project.
Steve
Perhaps it was not the wisest to post that Danny Ritchie video, given all the nit picky negative comments. I thought his general message was good common sense about spending on crossover parts. Danny has his own forum on Audiocircle and perhaps it's just best to leave the comments there and not here.
Good luck finding a suitable Troel's project. You had seemed to be leaning to one of the CNO designs. As mentioned earlier, I have a similar speaker and really like it, having had it for years and years. But you certainly cannot go wrong with a Troels or Tony Gee project.
Steve
If you're interested in simplistic crossovers the CNO-25-MKII appeals to me. CNO-25-mkII
How much performance would I lose by going to the substantially cheaper MK-III? CNO MK-III
Trying a 'state of the art' ribbon tweeter causes the Purifi-6R to show up on my radar. Purifi-6R
Regards,
Dan
How much performance would I lose by going to the substantially cheaper MK-III? CNO MK-III
Trying a 'state of the art' ribbon tweeter causes the Purifi-6R to show up on my radar. Purifi-6R
Regards,
Dan
The CNO 25 will give you far better low end response than the CNO.
My speaker began life as Ellis Audio 1801, original crossover. It just didn't have enough bass. That led to the Rick Craig consultation and the added W18 and the 2 1/2 way.
Yes, there is the new Purifi-6R. That's a developing topic with threads to match.
I quite like the idea of the 3 way Classic Scan Speak MkII
http://www.troelsgravesen.dk/Discovery-3WC-mkII.htm
The drivers are very well behaved similar to the old Vifa drivers they are based on. It makes for a simple crossover which doesn't cost a fortune even with fancier parts and the baffle layout and driver sizes stand the best chance of still giving decent directivity with an on axis centric crossover.
Two quotes from it that I think are quite telling
"The thing I can say is that had I built this speaker 15 years ago when I started my website, there wouldn't have been as many speakers as there is today".
"Well behaving drivers may very well provide the same sonic pleasure as drivers costing 10 times as much. They may not have the dynamic headroom of more expensive drivers, but size can compensate for that. The less cones move, the less distortion".
I can't reconcile everything that Troels has to say, but his comments do strike me as honestly made, unlike the snake oil peddler pictured above.
Again, a design for which there isn't any evidence of performance apart a single FR of the whole speaker. No crossover points stated, no FR with a reversed mid, no off-axis measurements, even the stated 88dB sensitivity is dubious with a 89dB woofer (where is baffle step?). And we have again a stepped baffle with the inherently diffraction produced. It isn't that hard to produce a flat FR, but this is not sufficient for a great sounding speaker.
Maybe this speaker sounds good, but there isn't a proof apart Troels' own words, and this should be taken with a grain of salt (even more I'd say).
I have nothing against buying a design, but I need data to support my decision. With all the latest (non free) Troels designs, simply there isn't data, what I see are designs targeted to people impressed by audiophile words and appealed by a step-by-step build tutorial.
I also really dislike the idea of having to buy expensive and exotic crossover parts in order to have the design, I'd rather buy the design only, and have the choice of buying or not the crossover elements.
The whole point of using a Troels design as a reference is simply faulty.
Ralf
Bwahaha.
Overrated, overpriced xovers with woowoo capacitors and poor measurement suites posted. Hard pass. Ditto Tony Gee's stuff.
Suggestion is a wonderful thing. Ask P.T. Barnum.
Cop out so that if you don't like it after you build it, bad luck as it's all subjective so don't blame Troels.
Last edited:
Vacuous comment.
Don't like my posts, then why should I leave? Don't read them.