Mysterious crossover worth replacing?

[greatsushi]

It’s a NAD 310. But I’d opt for what ever way I get most bang for my buck. If I’m not paying for an integrated amp so more budget is for the drivers or design etc then I’d do that

 

[Gnobuddy]

Is it a usual thing to have two studio monitors and a sub to compliment them?

I don't know if it's usual, but that's what I arrived at. I use a pair of Alesis Monitor One Mk II studio monitors, paired with a Velodyne subwoofer, for all my TV and music listening, as well as for the occasional mixing of one of my own compositions.

I bought my (passive) monitors at a time when powered monitors were becoming all the rage, so I paid something like $160 (USD) for the pair (less than half the usual $400 price.) The Velodyne was on sale at Fry's Electronics for something under $150.

No speaker system is perfect, but I think it would take a lot of money to substantially improve on the sound quality of this on-the-cheap $300 system. For budget passive monitors, these old Alesis ones do an extremely good job, IMO.

-Gnobuddy

 

[Fast Eddie D]

That natural rolloff curve is caused by cone break-up modes, which also create large amounts of distortion, and usually also negatively affect the sound dispersion pattern.

Some woofers exhibit a fairly natural 6 dB/octave rolloff. These woofers can sometimes work quite well with a 6 dB/octave crossover rolloff. Some woofer's break up modes are much worse than others. 12 dB/octave crossover slope is mandatory with some woofers.

So using the natural rolloff of the woofer as a crossover more or less guarantees that there will be excessive harmonic distortion, erratic frequency response, and an erratic dispersion pattern from the woofer, before it hands over to the tweeter.

Of course I agree with you but again, lots and lots of popular speakers have been built this way for a long time. Some woofers are designed to be used this way. And the effect is greatly mitigated off axis.

This is why a good speaker system rolls off the woofer at a frequency well below the woofer's own treble rolloff: to attenuate the nasties that go with cone breakup as much as possible.

Ideally. "Good" speaker systems also cost way more than what average consumers are willing to pay too. That's what Bose is for. It's good enough for most people and even carries some prestige. It may be stupid but that's the market.

I have around $360 invested in my 8" two ways. (That's just what I had to buy and I had a lot of stuff already.) They are done the right way of course. Crossover optimized to everything; MKP caps and medium Q notch filter, ferrofluid cooled dome tweeter attenuated by the book. Woofers have hi xmax, magnetic shorting rings, phase plug. Super loud and clear with full tight bass - my neighbors, who all bought Bose this or that, are astounded. But - they balk at the price. Are they really better than Bose for the same price?

The low-frequency rolloff of a properly designed tweeter isn't accompanied by any sonic nasties. But down at those relatively low frequencies, the tweeter is usually excursion-limited, and may also be power-limited.

So a high-pass filter is necessary to save the tweeter from damage due to too much low frequency energy.

-Gnobuddy

Tweeters are much better behaved but like you say, excursion limited.

You know you're preaching to the choir.

 

[Gnobuddy]

You know you're preaching to the choir.

Now I do.

Bose is a really interesting phenomenon. I once heard a Bose "wave radio" in a restaurant in California, and marveled at the fact that the owner had spent so much money for such poor sound. I think they cost around $450 USD at the time. You could buy much better sound quality from other manufacturers for that amount of money.

More recently, a few months ago, I heard a Bose L1 (line array P.A. system) at a live music event here in British Columbia, and once again, marveled at the fact that anyone would spend nearly $1200 (CAD) for such mediocre (and, to me, outright unpleasant) sound.

Treble from the L1 was "shrieky" and caused me ear-fatigue in a short time. The bass sounded quite disconnected from the treble. Having no measurement data, I can only guess that maybe this was because there was a midrange hole in the frequency response, and/or maybe also because of very different dispersion patterns between the woofer and the tall tower of screechy little midranges above it. The wide physical separation between the acoustic center of the woofer and the acoustic center of the aforementioned tower of screechy midranges cannot have helped, either.

Once again, you could buy much better sound elsewhere for the $1200 the L1 costs.

So why do expensive and underwhelming Bose products continue to sell? I wish I knew, but understanding human psychology has never been one of my strengths!

-Gnobuddy