I find that extremely expensive.
I designed a board that is about 10-15 bucks without opamps.
So make it 20-25 bucks at most.
Sure you can make everything as fancy and expensive as you like, but that is totally missing the point of this example.
You can make passive filters also a lot more expensive as well.
I agree.
In general, the topic of sound reproduction is so vast that any attempts to reduce everything to some short unambiguous statements will lead to inaccuracies in the details.
In three-way speakers, there is no particular problem in using a speaker in the frequency range in which its distortions are acceptable. It is based on the level of nonlinear distortions that I choose the acceptable operating frequency range of speakers.
I am not so sure.
There are plenty of well performing 5 inch drivers with cone break-up issues that reflect back in the distortion around 800-2000Hz.
One simple notch will fix that entirely.
In an hybrid system often a series inductor will also bring that way down.
If someone wants enough SPL and/or headroom, you need at least a 5 inch as a mid.
Or use a high efficiency dome mid, but that brings a lot of other complications.
I agree. There are tasks in which you cannot choose the speaker that will provide the required level of nonlinear distortion at the required SPL from it.
In general, everything is as always, this or that implementation depends on the final goal. And those who have studied the basic dependencies can choose the optimal way to achieve the goal. And there are no unambiguous and simple answers that work always and everywhere, much in the implementation depends on the final goal and the skills of the developer.
Nothing fancy, just discrete jfet buffers, 1% FKP2 caps, Dale RN55 resistors.
But of course you can make it a lot cheaper.
In DIY, everyone can choose what he wants and how he wants.
The best way to save money is no crossover and full range drivers.
Patrick
Thanks so from what I've understood FIR or IIR filtering could alleviate the phasing issues that a passive XO would introduce, at the expense of extra delay... However I'd still need to account for any phase difference introduced by the impedance of the actual drivers and make sure to time-aline the speakers on the baffle.
A good option would be to apply an active XO upstream of my amp, and use that to split out the bass frqs, then a passive XO could be used betw. mids and tweeter? I'm guessing if I followed this approach then I'd just need to worry about getting the tweeter / mids in phase within the cross over, and apply and all pass filter before the sub, corresponding to the above phase shift?
This is more for my understanding tbh, I'm thinking fully active XO is starting to sound a good deal more straight forward
A good option would be to apply an active XO upstream of my amp, and use that to split out the bass frqs, then a passive XO could be used betw. mids and tweeter? I'm guessing if I followed this approach then I'd just need to worry about getting the tweeter / mids in phase within the cross over, and apply and all pass filter before the sub, corresponding to the above phase shift?
This is more for my understanding tbh, I'm thinking fully active XO is starting to sound a good deal more straight forward