Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
Most people will buy on reputation, looks, price and an on-line review. They also tend to follow the crowd rather than buy something off the beaten track. And most are not buying hi-end, so I'm not sure how your concern applies to every person in the world.
Measurements are hard to correlate with listening pleasure (in real rooms) and many speakers are not measured over a wide range of parameters and conditions.
I think I can answer here as I know where Steve is coming from. The answer is no.
It is a case of with shallower slopes (especially with a low crossover point when considering the tweeter) then the extra bass energy that gets through to the tweeter can cause more (I assume IM) distortion.
Additionally with shallow slopes any breakup in the low frequency driver will be more likely to be contributing to the combined FR, this will obviously be more of a problem with higher crossover frequencies.
Tony.
About listening periods, small deviations take longer to be noticed. Alas some defaults are more annoying than others. Third, we are discussing te differences between basically very good (hifi) speakers, right?
In high end, Magico, Vivid and Revel use steep filters but Dunlavy and Marten shallow. Both get mostly good reviews and measure well. Wilson Alexx has 2nd LM and 4th MH
Wilson Audio Specialties Alexx loudspeaker Measurements | Stereophile.com
In high end, Magico, Vivid and Revel use steep filters but Dunlavy and Marten shallow. Both get mostly good reviews and measure well. Wilson Alexx has 2nd LM and 4th MH
Wilson Audio Specialties Alexx loudspeaker Measurements | Stereophile.com
With listening, I find comparison with another speaker (I use a Mordaunt Short ms10i Classic) makes any shortcomings much easier (and quicker) to spot than only listening to the new speaker.
That is how I interpreted Steve's post too.
However I think with shallow slopes the tweeter is just simply being overloaded reaching its thermal and excursion limits rather than suffering increased IM.
Wouldn't it all depend on what drivers you start with? This is way to generalizing and with specific 2 way's in mind if you ask me.
There are so many ways to build a speaker. Many choices on with drivers one could pick for the job. All design factors play a role in how one decides to build it. Shallow filters don't distort. Drivers might if they are not chosen wisely. It would all depend on the combinations used. The popular fast might react very different from the 6.5" plus 1" tweeter or the 15" plus compression driver top. All would be called a two way.
I'll probably be regarded as stupid as I don't even have any crossovers at all.
There are so many ways to build a speaker. Many choices on with drivers one could pick for the job. All design factors play a role in how one decides to build it. Shallow filters don't distort. Drivers might if they are not chosen wisely. It would all depend on the combinations used. The popular fast might react very different from the 6.5" plus 1" tweeter or the 15" plus compression driver top. All would be called a two way.
I'll probably be regarded as stupid as I don't even have any crossovers at all.
Yes I was generalising.
However since I estimate that over 90% of 2ways use dome tweets that is a fairly safe thing to do.
Earl's 2ways with compression tweets would be a different case but he doesn't use shallow filters as far as I know.
However since I estimate that over 90% of 2ways use dome tweets that is a fairly safe thing to do.
Earl's 2ways with compression tweets would be a different case but he doesn't use shallow filters as far as I know.
On that, a person has to take breakup into account if going close, then make allowances for the acoustic centres.
What about all the other options available? If one was to be determined to use shallow crossovers would it not make sense to choose the components that fit? I don't think Earl quoted the post thinking of dome tweeters, but took notice because of the sentence it was used in:
Like I said, the filters would not be the problem. One does not have to pick a dome tweeter because it is a popular choice.
Like I said, the filters would not be the problem. One does not have to pick a dome tweeter because it is a popular choice.
3 way is better from many POV
( at least when you are not exceeeding with driver's diameter 'cos the quasi-point-source has some basic requirements )
( at least when you are not exceeeding with driver's diameter 'cos the quasi-point-source has some basic requirements )
What two way model did I suggest? I'm not aware I suggested any...
All I said is there are many ways to design a speaker. When going for shallow slopes one should choose it's components wisely.
Would 5 way be better? Or 4? Do we need horns? Arrays? AMT, planar? Way to many options for any blank statements.
When shooting for shallow slopes, maybe it would be wise to choose more than a 2 way.
However it would still depend on too many factors to make these generalisations in a discussion about steep vs shallow filter topologies.
All I said is there are many ways to design a speaker. When going for shallow slopes one should choose it's components wisely.
Would 5 way be better? Or 4? Do we need horns? Arrays? AMT, planar? Way to many options for any blank statements.
When shooting for shallow slopes, maybe it would be wise to choose more than a 2 way.
However it would still depend on too many factors to make these generalisations in a discussion about steep vs shallow filter topologies.
Last edited:
The one shallow sloped (6dB) speaker I enjoyed was the huge Dynaudio thing (Consequence?) which was a 5way.
Although I am certain similar could be achieved with a steeper sloped 3way.
Possibly. I'm looking at this from a dome perspective, and always figured that low frequencies that were never intended to be reproduced could cause weird (pysical) distortions of the dome, which would then cause IM. No evidence to back this up, just a thought 🙂
Again anecdotally, my attempt at a 2nd order with Morel DMS37 tweeters which theoretically should handle quite low crossover and high power, was at 2.8Khz, not a low crossover point. They fell apart with dense music at medium levels and sounded awful. changing to 4th order (acoustic) at 2.8 Khz was a massive improvement. However I always assumed it was the tweeter that was the issue, and it may well have been breakup on the midbass, and a lower crossover point may actually have worked better... I probably should experiment with that at some point.
Tony.
The first case is of no importance if one uses a driver capable of the excursion (which is NOT a dome tweeter.) The second case is a true issue for most woofers. Hence, I use a shallow slope on the tweeter 6 dB/oct and a stepper one on the woofer 18dB/oct . Works just fine for me.
If the midwoof cone break up is above the xover point couldn't you just put an extra notch filter across it?
I don't see that as much difference. The notch makes the first slope steeper and then the slope after the notch shallower. Why not just keep the rolloff steep and save the extra component. Now actively I have used a notch filter since there is no cost to it.
A notch filter across the woofer terminals after the low pass affects the high pass?
How does it do that?
Sorry I'm not well versed in passive xovers since I very much prefer active.
How does it do that?
Sorry I'm not well versed in passive xovers since I very much prefer active.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.