Fair enough. That definately would lead to a different set of trade offs for a speaker than I would need or my family would tolerate. And potentially a much bigger amp than I use. Wouldn't life be boring if we all wanted or needed the same thing 🙂
I listen to music extremely loudly most of the time...and hours, but have never managed to break a tweeter.
Midranges on the contrary i destroyed 4 times (7 in total), both melted coils and cracked cones
Also destroy woofers 2 times (4 at once one time), and destroyed resistors... and one coil on Revel Salon 1 front tweeter
Midranges on the contrary i destroyed 4 times (7 in total), both melted coils and cracked cones
Also destroy woofers 2 times (4 at once one time), and destroyed resistors... and one coil on Revel Salon 1 front tweeter
Attachments
Oh wow... you have me beat on that one. I've only (unintentionally) destroyed a few 7" B&Ws which I didn't really miss that much. Those had 25mm VCs, so they weren't that stout to begin with. Didn't melt the VC but bottomed it and went open circuit. My JC5 just went "wait,... what was that?... ahh nevermind..." It just made a sharp crack and it was over.
I have to say that the Vifa M26s are power houses. They just move the air exactly where it needs to go. Delicate, but capable of brutal midbass clarity.
I have to say that the Vifa M26s are power houses. They just move the air exactly where it needs to go. Delicate, but capable of brutal midbass clarity.
The only tweeters I have melted were the Morel CAT378s. They don't complain at all when being pushed hard, but the VC lets go with more than 15W over a few mins. I cross these around 2.8 - 3k LR2 with Peerless NE180W using a small 4.5k notch. It will deal with about 106 dB at listening position for a while. The woofer is stout and very reliable.
Edit - tip for Morel guys. Using a tiny bit more FF in the CAT308/378 makes it survive much longer, but it kills just a smidge of top end detail. Thats what the older 3 way PMCs use and suggest doing when repairing tweeters. They say to overfill FF and its how they used to ship their replacement tweeters.
Edit - tip for Morel guys. Using a tiny bit more FF in the CAT308/378 makes it survive much longer, but it kills just a smidge of top end detail. Thats what the older 3 way PMCs use and suggest doing when repairing tweeters. They say to overfill FF and its how they used to ship their replacement tweeters.
Last edited:
I recall a scene where Neo has to rip off his headphones because of some acoustic feedback almost ruptures his eardrums? Is this the one?
I think this is one interpretation.
But like any history, it’s a windy road and can get complicated, depending on who's telling it. Here's my interpretation, with some references. I do not like to partake in gossip, so I like to keep to publicly available information, but my opinion is inserted in “Commentary” section.
I will also include links to Stereophile reviews, as it serves a source of useful historical information, because they name the drivers used speakers, and manufacturers were usually offered a chance to respond in writing to correct erroneous data prior to/after publication. (i.e. reasonable accuracy)
***
Wilson Audio
When Dave Wilson founded his company in 1987, at the ripe age of 43, he had already been a staff writer for The Absolute Sound . Wilson Audio
My commentary
Like Stereophile, founded in 1962, TAS was founded in 1973 by Harry Pearson, who termed "high-end audio" , and they worked hand in hand with the cottage industry smaller volume manufacturers throughout the 1970-80s, long after major manufacturers eg. Telefunken, RCA, Philips, Sony, had moved onto other industries like television, video, computing or other emerging high-tech industries.
In his first product, David used KEF's B139 woofers, satellites from Braun (the German electronics company) and equalizers from Crown International .
The first product was released in 1981 called the WAMM Here is the Stereophile review discussing the drivers
My commentary
In 1981, US $35,000 was a LOT of money for a speaker, equivalent to US $130,000 in 2025.
To put that in historical perspective, it was more expensive than anything else at the time (Arnie Nudell's Infinity Reference System (IRS)- was $29K, and Mark Levinson's HQD- was $24K.
So from the beginning, David Wilson knew how he wanted to price his products, and who he would sell them too.
But we also need to understand the man. In his memoir Life in the rear view mirror, he discussed his love penchant for Ferraris:
I must have hammered Sheryl Lee to get that car. We really couldn’t afford it. However, it was cheapby today’s standards. It cost $5,584.21. (US$57,000 in 2025) For us in our circumstances, we should have been looking at a cararound $3,000. (US$30,000 in 2025) Sheryl Lee was teaching at Wilson Junior High School, and I was working as a drug salesman...well, I guess a lot of “drug salesmen” in Hollywood drive Ferraris...but I was legitimately working for Abbott Laboratories as a drug representative.
He had a few revisions of this big speaker before releasing a stand mount monitor called WATT, which costed 3 times higher than other monitors in the marketplace. It was in for US$4,400 in 1986 (~ US$ 13,000 in 2025) This time using drivers from SEAS and Focal.
Wilson WATT loudspeaker
CommentaryThis is a truncated pyramid shaped enclosure, which we now know can mitigate diffraction. Of course, whether this was a goal by design or lucky coincidence, we will never know. What we do know is that it is an incredibly dense- 1/3 cu ft (9L) enclosure weighing 60lbs (27kg).
Here is a 1/3 octave amplitude response according to Stereophile:
I will give David Wilson (and/or Stereophile) the benefit of the doubt, because measurements were pretty rudimentary in 1986 ( MLSSA had not yet just been released )
However, the impedance is marred by a drop below 1 ohm:
The Puppy was a small woofer enclosure turned it into a 3-way Watt/Puppy. Various revisions were made to the WATT/Puppy speaker, throughout the years and by 1994 the the "series 5" had switched to a "7" coated-pulp cone"
"The driver complement is one 1" inverted titanium-dome Focal tweeter, and one 7" Scanspeak midrange/woofer. Both are proprietary designs which Wilson has further modified—the Scanspeak driver looks a bit scabrous, as it has been treated with some sort of (randomly applied, it seems) damping compound"
Reference:
Wilson Audio WATT/Puppy 5 loudspeaker
Wilson Audio released other models in the following decades
However, David developed cancer in 2010 and despite taking immediate action with active treatment, battled it courageously several years 8 years. Sadly it had spready throughout his body by 2017 and he died in 2018. Today the company is survived by his wife and youngest son Daryl.
Wilson Audio is a company of ~50 employees and they continue using Scan-Speak as the original equipment manufacturer for their transducers in the 2024 release "Watt/Puppy"
"Wilson Audio has enjoyed much experience with European drivers chosen primarily for transparency and musicality. All those in the current WATT/Puppy are by ScanSpeak..."
The upcoming Sabrina V continues in that tradition.
***
Scan-Speak
David Wilson was NOT the first to use to Scan-Speak- that honour belongs to the David Hafler The background for this was American David Hafler had founded Dynaco in 1954. He's probably best remember as selling the vacuum tube stereo amplifier like the Stereo 70 (1959) or as a kit (Dynakit) to hobbyists to do final assembly at home, which were both sales successes. During the golden age of hi-fi, many start-ups came from employees leaving B&O, Telefunken, Magnavox, Jensen etc. One ex-B&O employee starts Audio Dyne in 1965, to import Dynaco amplifiers to sell to the European market.Scan-Speak
By 1967, with Hafler's support, turns this company into ScanDyna. The idea is that ScanDyna would build the cabinets and use transducers sourced from SEAS, and have the whole thing assembled in Denmark, and exported to be sold to the large American market. The first product was the sold as the Dynaco A-25 (1968), using a SEAS 10" woofer with a rubber surround (innovative for the time), and one of the first soft dome tweeters- SEAS 1.5", model H87. It's consider small in it's day... despite measuring 50x29x25 cm ~20"x11"x10" (HxWxD)
We have to understand that in the 1950-60s, Denmark had a significant furniture and wood products industry (Ingvar Kamprad had not opened his first IKEA store in Denmark until 1969)
Looking for a 2nd supplier, Hafler meets an enterprising Ejvind Skaaning, an ex-Ford mechanic, ex-scooter business owner and owner of record company Quality Sound Recordings. Skaaning builds a prototype and convinces Hafler that he can also supply speakers. He gets the contract, and continues builds speakers using SEAS drivers. The A-25 speaker is a sales success for Dynaco, and both SEAS and QSR benefit greatly.
SEAS was not happy with QSR being a competing supplier for Dynaco. SEAS engineer Mogens Hvass is fired from SEAS for co-operating to build a 1.5" D3806 soft dome tweeter for QSR. Ejvind Skaaning boldly hires him, and then hires Ragnar Lian from SEAS months later. In 1970 Skaaning converts his business to Scan-Speak So ex-SEAS employees Mogens and Ragnar are now back together, making drivers as Scan-Speak.
Meanwhile Hafler has a hit on his hands after Stereophile gives it a positive review in 1969, and Consumer Reports gives it a "Best-Buy" award in 1970
(US$160/pair in 1969 -> $2000 in 2025!)
***
Commentary:Each time Scan-Speak, or SEAS, releases a new product line, it doesn't necessarily replace the old line. But the prices definitely go up. They are, amongst others, the boutique parts for the "high-end" market.
Further reading:
History of Scan-Speak
Skaaning, the man
Danish Loudspeakers 100 Years 1915-2015
The History of SEAS 1950-2020
History of Scan-Speak
Skaaning, the man
Danish Loudspeakers 100 Years 1915-2015
The History of SEAS 1950-2020
Last edited:
Thats a nice history lesson, but it doesn't change how the company philosophy has changed for the worse. I remember all the incarnations of Wilson speakers. There were too many of them, but due to DWs fairly constant connection with the audiophile magazines, product exposure was never minimal.
I've used many of the Focal tweeters myself along with the ScanSpeak stuff. It was when DW started using those newer wrinkle cone ScanSpeak drivers when it made me disconnect. The new SS air dried cone drivers may have had lower.distortion in some areas, but they had significant other bad traits elsewhere.
When you start pushing a product from an all out scientific angle, it will have to be made to look like the product isn't flawed whatsoever from any technical perspective. It was after all designed in a lab by scientists, so it should be technically "perfect", right?!
Bose and Carver did this sort of thing, pitching the product from a purely technical and scientific perspective. We all know how flawed those products were, yet the people who touted them always came back at the critics with scientific explanations that were designed to discredit any criticism from more subjective angles. Bose moto was always "better sound through research", but anyone with half an ear knew better.
Bose was very successful at silencing their critics through law suits, even though most of their products were crap. The people who usually bought Bose stuff were Doctors, Lawyers and other people with more money than sense.
My issue with companies that try to put bandaids on something to make it "go away" is their attempt to downplay the products other flaws. This also means discrediting and passively badmouthing those who point out these flaws as being "too picky" and unreasonable in their expectations... not for how much Wilson charges for their speakers. You should be able to expect more if the price is proportionately higher.
Some products which were more flawed from inception forward actually got better with time and engineering improvements ie. the Porsche 911. They stuck with the rear engine concept and perfected it over time. Now they are an excellent handling vehicle, just as capable on the road as most any other type of sports car design.
Other products like Wilson speakers haven't gotten that much better despite the company stubbornly trying to stick with their design aspects, throwing ridiculous amounts of effort into designing a tweeter that in the end still has significantly inadequate outout potential in critical areas of the midrange.
I've used many of the Focal tweeters myself along with the ScanSpeak stuff. It was when DW started using those newer wrinkle cone ScanSpeak drivers when it made me disconnect. The new SS air dried cone drivers may have had lower.distortion in some areas, but they had significant other bad traits elsewhere.
When you start pushing a product from an all out scientific angle, it will have to be made to look like the product isn't flawed whatsoever from any technical perspective. It was after all designed in a lab by scientists, so it should be technically "perfect", right?!
Bose and Carver did this sort of thing, pitching the product from a purely technical and scientific perspective. We all know how flawed those products were, yet the people who touted them always came back at the critics with scientific explanations that were designed to discredit any criticism from more subjective angles. Bose moto was always "better sound through research", but anyone with half an ear knew better.
Bose was very successful at silencing their critics through law suits, even though most of their products were crap. The people who usually bought Bose stuff were Doctors, Lawyers and other people with more money than sense.
My issue with companies that try to put bandaids on something to make it "go away" is their attempt to downplay the products other flaws. This also means discrediting and passively badmouthing those who point out these flaws as being "too picky" and unreasonable in their expectations... not for how much Wilson charges for their speakers. You should be able to expect more if the price is proportionately higher.
Some products which were more flawed from inception forward actually got better with time and engineering improvements ie. the Porsche 911. They stuck with the rear engine concept and perfected it over time. Now they are an excellent handling vehicle, just as capable on the road as most any other type of sports car design.
Other products like Wilson speakers haven't gotten that much better despite the company stubbornly trying to stick with their design aspects, throwing ridiculous amounts of effort into designing a tweeter that in the end still has significantly inadequate outout potential in critical areas of the midrange.
It is when you neglect other fundamental design priorities which are equally as important to the design sounding as good as it can. You shouldn't after all go backwards. Off axis FR, equal dynamic potential across the entire midrange and lowest possible midrange distortion should all be equally important.
Of course. Like not defining a maximum SPL peak or average at the listening spot. And that is very relevant for the use of dome tweeters.
History has shown us a few bare dome tweeters used for studio monitoring, I recall KEF KM-1 and B&W 808. The former had a 50mm dome and even then they had to get everything out of the closet to get to 120dB without trouble.
So in fact this thread isn’t revealing anything new. Pages ago a few of us suggested most people don’t go beyond 105dB, even with Wilson flagships. Normal 25mm domes can do that, more than a few even from 1,5kHz. So I’d say we’ve got it covered. Don’t use home hifi for studio or public address.
That can definitely be an issue. In this hyper computerized world we live in. Its much easier to become a Vituix Cad jockey and mull over tons of small scale data in sims. While that's all nice to have such easy access to, I wish it were easier to generate more standardized and reliable raw driver parameters, trying to catch highly accurate FR/THD/CSD from each driver in the DIY setting. The problem with most of the available driver data floating around the web now is how sketchy it can be when its generated by the DIY world using cheap
The other thing I try to comprehend is the in-house driver design being so low priority with large companies like PMC, Volt and ATC. These guys are developing their own drivers where there is a need or shortcoming in current driver stock. That's nice, but they're understandably secretive of their work with all the copy cat engineering going on in the world.
ScanSpeak, Tymphany, Seas and SB are really the last giants of European chassis design left. When they're gone, its going to be a very boring world for analog focused guys who still use outboard class AB amps.
You still have the pro audio world ie. Harman, 18Sound/ B&C/ RCF/ Eminence, Beyma, which are pretty big in the DiY world. These sort of bleed into the new breed of DIY, which are more into combining Pro PA with Home Audio. Tymphany is blurring the line of traditional European chassis design with Pro audio. They expose both sides of PA and Home audio equally to blend more of a modular design approach using integrated DSP and amplifier tech.
I believe the DSP supported class D with PA chassis is taking off alot more, but its generating more focus on lower priced, easier to access FIR technology. Thats alot easier to control now in the DIY world.
They're basically taking more advantage of the existing lower priced chassis stock and doing more versatile things with it, sort of modern day hot rodding does. The car audio culture is greatly driven by all of this now, taking alot of PA driver tech and melting it together with home audio and home theater, creating their own culture with it all.
The little guys like at PRV/Lavoce/Ciare/Sica are also turning out some decent drivers, but they're nothing as refined as Seas or ScanSpeak. The little fringe Euro/Asian companies (Kartesian, Visaton) have a few nice drivers as well. I just hope the two sides talk to each other more and don't lose contact with both sides of culture. It would be a shame if that happened. Hard core analog guys like me are trying to keep an open mind to newer driver technology as well as DSP.
There is still alot more to be gained from newer, unexplored driver technology rather than just settling for whats already there. Unexploited driver tech still has alot more to offer if we kept our minds open to it. Laser interferrometry is still really in it infancy, even for DIY.
The other thing I try to comprehend is the in-house driver design being so low priority with large companies like PMC, Volt and ATC. These guys are developing their own drivers where there is a need or shortcoming in current driver stock. That's nice, but they're understandably secretive of their work with all the copy cat engineering going on in the world.
ScanSpeak, Tymphany, Seas and SB are really the last giants of European chassis design left. When they're gone, its going to be a very boring world for analog focused guys who still use outboard class AB amps.
You still have the pro audio world ie. Harman, 18Sound/ B&C/ RCF/ Eminence, Beyma, which are pretty big in the DiY world. These sort of bleed into the new breed of DIY, which are more into combining Pro PA with Home Audio. Tymphany is blurring the line of traditional European chassis design with Pro audio. They expose both sides of PA and Home audio equally to blend more of a modular design approach using integrated DSP and amplifier tech.
I believe the DSP supported class D with PA chassis is taking off alot more, but its generating more focus on lower priced, easier to access FIR technology. Thats alot easier to control now in the DIY world.
They're basically taking more advantage of the existing lower priced chassis stock and doing more versatile things with it, sort of modern day hot rodding does. The car audio culture is greatly driven by all of this now, taking alot of PA driver tech and melting it together with home audio and home theater, creating their own culture with it all.
The little guys like at PRV/Lavoce/Ciare/Sica are also turning out some decent drivers, but they're nothing as refined as Seas or ScanSpeak. The little fringe Euro/Asian companies (Kartesian, Visaton) have a few nice drivers as well. I just hope the two sides talk to each other more and don't lose contact with both sides of culture. It would be a shame if that happened. Hard core analog guys like me are trying to keep an open mind to newer driver technology as well as DSP.
There is still alot more to be gained from newer, unexplored driver technology rather than just settling for whats already there. Unexploited driver tech still has alot more to offer if we kept our minds open to it. Laser interferrometry is still really in it infancy, even for DIY.
@markbakk While we do have the potential tech in place to pull off higher output domestic systems as you describe, the strong priority of one side is to do it in a purely analog domain. The younger generation is settling for all DSP-based systems, which is appropriate for digital source.
That's where it devides for me, as I don't want to be stuck with a DSP based system when I'm trying to keep my signal chain analog. Why is that so important to me? Its due to still having a large collection of purely analog based recordings.
I believe in taking the best of newer driver tech and combining it with the best signal chain and source gear. The only scenario where this is appropriate IMHO is when listening to a purely analog based recording ie. vinyl and R2R. Once you've crossed the line of digital based recording, you're already there and there's no point in pushing analog source anymore.
So, as long as analog source is still available, the valid push for a purely analog based system is still there. If there were a fire (heaven forbid), I'd just go DSP based for everything. As of right now there's still a huge supply of analog source still available.
That's where it devides for me, as I don't want to be stuck with a DSP based system when I'm trying to keep my signal chain analog. Why is that so important to me? Its due to still having a large collection of purely analog based recordings.
I believe in taking the best of newer driver tech and combining it with the best signal chain and source gear. The only scenario where this is appropriate IMHO is when listening to a purely analog based recording ie. vinyl and R2R. Once you've crossed the line of digital based recording, you're already there and there's no point in pushing analog source anymore.
So, as long as analog source is still available, the valid push for a purely analog based system is still there. If there were a fire (heaven forbid), I'd just go DSP based for everything. As of right now there's still a huge supply of analog source still available.
That impedance response though that's almost a complete short at 2kHz. In fact it probably is and only the cables, and any series crossover resistance, are keeping it completely off the floor! Ironically if you look at the impedance response, as if it were a frequency response, then it looks like a superb reverse polarity null centred on a reasonable crossover point of 2kHz. Flip the polarity of the tweeter and I'd much rather listen to the flattened impedance than the actual frequency response!
Clearly these were designed without any measurement or simulation gear. No bafflestep compensation and one heluva wonky frequency response. No thanks!
I don't think I've ever seen a Wilson speaker that I thought measured well though. The same could be said for a lot of high-end speakers.
I don't think so. It was too long ago to remember for sure. I have a different release now, and I'm not sure if the audio changed between versions. I think it might have been the last fight scene where Neo jumps inside of Agent Smith. Seems likely that I would have had the volume up there.
I thought it would be obvious if I watched it again, but honestly there's so much unnatural high frequency content in the movie it's hard to say for sure. The scene in the train station when Trinity transfers out and the phone gets shot is another one that has some piercing high frequency content that's not in multiple other spots. The sentinels' lasers are pretty tough on the ears, but I don't think the thing that killed the tweeter lasted as long as those effects.
Last edited:
Based on this quote from Stereophile it sounds like a resonant circuit directly across the amp, although it's not clear. I have doubts about the quoted guess as to the purpose.
Stereophile said:
@AllenB A decent amp won't have a Zobel in series with the speaker. Cheaper ones sometimes do however. Most of Wilson crossovers are shrouded in mystery and aren't shown to the consumer. They're often potted in epoxy to hide component values. That's another big no for me, as it means they have something to hide and don't want anyone else repairing it. The things they usually hide are capacitor values and also how cheap the caps are, being some of the speakers use a series xover topology. Thats usually only for saving money. Needless to say, most of the Wilson crossovers are difficult to drive thanks to the weird xover topology.
I'd like to clarify are we talking about a Boucherot cell or a speaker system impedance conjugate. I was talking about the latter.
If it is then I've seen things like this before, although their effect is unclear at best.
If it is then I've seen things like this before, although their effect is unclear at best.
You may not like their capacitor type, but ones wound in the US and hand matched to 0.2% don't seem like they'd fit in the "cheap" category generally.
https://www.wilsonaudio.com/reliable-capacitors#:~:text=Each capacitor is tightly wound,that build Wilson Audio loudspeakers.
"Wilson Audio purchased the world renowned capacitor manufacturing company Reliable Capacitors in 2018. Now, this capacitor manufacturing division at Wilson Audio has propelled new product evolution with rapid prototyping, internal design innovation, and the development of groundbreaking capacitor configurations that surpass industry standards with the utmost precision.
Each capacitor is tightly wound in-house on state-of-the-art winding machines which were custom-built for Reliable Capacitors in Switzerland and the USA. Once wound, each capacitor is then carefully hand-finished by the same craftspeople that build Wilson Audio loudspeakers. This commitment to excellence is the essence of Wilson Audio's Reliable Capacitors, resulting in the world's finest capacitors."
---------------------
The first link takes you to the point where they're discussing tolerances, and the following 5 minutes show some of the matching, testing, and finishing they do.
This one is more about bringing Reliable Capacitors in-house.
Last edited:
Funny you should mention that. A couple of months ago I tried a conjugate network for the subwoofer because the impedance phase angle was a tad sporty. The plot has the cabinet impedance in red, corrected impedance in blue. Note the impedance angle has gone from +-55 degrees to +-10 degrees, a much more congenial load to the amplifier.
The surprise was how low drums cleaned up. I thought I heard a difference but it wasn't terribly obvious full range. Only after turning off everything above 160 Hz did it become clear: fast kick drum hits [1] which had previously run into each other were now quite distinct. Instead of going thumthumthumthum they became thwack thwack thwack thwack. I did have to rebalance the system a tad -- a couple more dB on the subs -- since spurious bottom end was no longer a factor, and what had been slightly irregular bass guitar, with some notes booming while others were thin, is now more even.
[1] Neil Peart, of course.
Ignore the kank at 170 Hz, it's a cabinet panel issue I haven't sorted yet. The conjugate network is a bit over the top; the caps are 120 uF polypropylene (I didn't want to deal with electrolytic aging/tolerance issues in that value), with 4 in parallel to make the 480 uF, and Mouser gives you a break when buying ten of them: 12 bucks a pop plus the %@&%&#&%#$(@( unfortunate tariff.
Attachments
I sometimes use conjugate circuits across the amp, like with yourself for clear reasons.
In the case of series LC, impedance phase clearly can't be the objective.
In the case of series LC, impedance phase clearly can't be the objective.
No, I was referring to the compensation LR Zobel alot of amps use in series with the output. If you're referring to an actual Boucherot Glied, no I stand corrected.
The crossovers I was looking at when I made the comment about capacitor quality weren't anything like you described. These weren't at all that way. They potted them in a way nobody could get them out without destroying them. The one side I tried to repair on a Watt Puppy 5 was shorted, so I had nothing to compare the value matching given the failure. It may be one of the most ultimate ways to avoid vibration coupling in a crossover, to solidly pot crossover parts, but it s very ridiculous from a servicing standpoint. Stuff breaks all the time. Even mil spec. Assuming it won't fail because of the way the part is assembled is foolish, so I can't quote as to the actual motivation why they potted the crossover parts. They put stuff together in such a way there's no access, so that is a massive issue for me.
Why would a company so serious about absolute performance make a product so inaccessible and unservicable? Theres no logic in that IMO. It just indirectly raises the middle finger towards the unexpected service tech that has to deal with it. Not everyone wants to ship prohibitively expensive speaker parts for servicing and risk the high likelihood of having their precious cargo damaged.
The crossovers I was looking at when I made the comment about capacitor quality weren't anything like you described. These weren't at all that way. They potted them in a way nobody could get them out without destroying them. The one side I tried to repair on a Watt Puppy 5 was shorted, so I had nothing to compare the value matching given the failure. It may be one of the most ultimate ways to avoid vibration coupling in a crossover, to solidly pot crossover parts, but it s very ridiculous from a servicing standpoint. Stuff breaks all the time. Even mil spec. Assuming it won't fail because of the way the part is assembled is foolish, so I can't quote as to the actual motivation why they potted the crossover parts. They put stuff together in such a way there's no access, so that is a massive issue for me.
Why would a company so serious about absolute performance make a product so inaccessible and unservicable? Theres no logic in that IMO. It just indirectly raises the middle finger towards the unexpected service tech that has to deal with it. Not everyone wants to ship prohibitively expensive speaker parts for servicing and risk the high likelihood of having their precious cargo damaged.