Speaker Crossovers

Docfoster

This discussion was created from comments split from: My pimped up classics....

[Deleted User]

As a man who owns cubes [ you not me ] I am surprised you feel it possible to go back to a speaker with a x-over .

I fear I am now condemned to modifying all the speakers I will own for life ,as every time I hear a x-over mid/bass I miss the immediacy , coherency , detail and rhythm of a directly coupled bass driver .

Alan

 I fear I am now condemned to modifying all the speakers I will own for life ,as every time I hear a x-over mid/bass I miss the immediacy , coherency , detail and rhythm of a directly coupled bass driver .

I know what you mean on all counts, but especially the immediacy. Have you ever heard Lowthers?

A friend has EX6, they are full rage units with no crossover. I've heard them integrated in OB speakers and now in a Tracrix horn (both to extend bass response). The things you describe go right up through the mid-range into the HF as well. They are like nothing I've ever heard, certainly in the dynamic & down right rude way they portray saxophone.

I can imagine someone falling totally for such unique reproduction. It only gets better without speaker cabinets!! But, it come with a bunch of compromises. I hope you find a well integrated set to listen to one day.

PAC

There's no shortage of immediacy with properly designed crossovers and it's also an over simplification to assume that just because a design doesn't use a crossover, it's phase accurate.  Having a tweeter a different distance to the listener from the woofer introduces phase delay (of the woofer output) for example.

It is also an over simplification and simply untrue that 1st order crossovers are phase accurate at all frequencies, because they are not. Only at crossover and generally for one octave above and below.

2nd Order, well designed can be very phase accurate over the same frequency band.

Running midbass and tweeter drivers full range only works if they are specifically designed for that, and few are.  They still need a capacitor in the tweeter and this introduces 90 degrees of phase difference between woofer and tweeter so they are not, in fact, phase accurate done this way.  You can offset the tweeter but again, the phase accuracy will not be at all frequencies.   

You can have immediacy and an audibly "invisible" crossover if the choice of drivers and the design of the crossover are carefully considered.  A little detailed homework will confirm that, but there are plenty of examples out there like this.

[Deleted User]

OB's not possible , 3 kids , 1 baby and disapproving wife .

I only got the jpw ap2's through the door cause the veneer matched the p.t and was sympathetic to the décor .

as you say , its all compromise .



And Pac , All my statements are limited to my own personal context , I make no universal pronouncements, I merely honestly recall my experience .

I promote this idea , cause it gets a lot of flack from people who generally haven't tried it and I found it a bloody revelation .

PAC

I appreciate that for your personal experience.  The point I am making  which is equally valid, is that one cannot generalise that because a design uses crossovers or multiple drivers that it cannot have immediacy or cannot be equally phase accurate.  Horses for courses as without the context of someone's listening room and system, recommendations are impossible and people can only try for themselves and tick the boxes of what they prefer.  In the case of a genuine full range driver (try and find a genuine 20Hz to 20KHz driver and best of luck as very few exist!) then what they have in spades is phase accuracy by definition at all frequencies.

There should be no lack of immediacy, detail, coherence or rhythm with well designed speakers, crossover or not.  If there is, then either driver choice, crossover design or cabinet design (or more than one  of those) is at fault.   The idea of running multiple (more than one) driver without a crossover gets a lot of flac because in general terms it is not a good idea unless the bass driver has been specially modified to run full range.  Driver voice coils are far from linear devices and there are no mid-woofers that I have tested that give linear output before roll-off (not to say they don't exist) where cone resonance (which can be damped to a certain extent) usually results in a peak of SPL and with an increase in distortion.  Usually it is better to roll off a woofer before this peak.  The design you refer to uses the natural roll off points of the driver with the 1st order roll off from the tweeter but the crossover point (as it still exists acoustically) will not be flat unless by design the woofer roll off curve and tweeter roll off curve when summed across crossover result in a summed flat response.  Whilst possible for a sub -Bessel/LR2/LR4 crossover design, it is generally not the case where no crossover is used.  

Ultimately, if it sounds good to you, that is all that should concern you which is good advice for anyone really.  

[Deleted User]

An anechoic flat frequency response is an orthodoxy that I cant get on board with , there was an interesting article in stereophile on this matter .

Dave brailsford attributes the success of British cycling to throwing away the rule book and cut and paste thinkers and employing first principle thinkers . There is a lot of cut and paste thinking and learning in all walks of life .

Alan

Trudat!

Keep enjoying what you're doing (or, run what you brung).

We should all bare in mind there is no universal truth in audio.

PAC

We're not talking just about flat response, we're talking about whether crossovers can be properly designed, and they most certainly can, and indeed are very necessary on a vast majority of loudspeakers.

It is totally bemusing how people can misunderstand what the implications of a flat response are.  In a nutshell, it means your speakers will deliver the frequency response of the recording you're playing with the response intended by the mastering engineers.  Whilst this is not always what you will hear "live" or even as the "live feed" because most albums are made up of layered tracks, it is a pretty good stab at what the recording engineers have in mind.  For live recordings, it means your speakers play back, within their frequency extreme limitations, just what the performance was recorded as (again, within limitations of the mic set up etc so you never really hear things as you would the live feed).  What on earth could be bad about that?  Who wants to introduce lifts or nulls where they dont exist on the recording?  If its to tame or make up for room response, then you either use room treatment, digital room correction or pick speakers that sound good to you for your room.  

Dont confuse a flat response ESPECIALLY across the crossover, as something associated with dead sounding speakers, as that is just plain nonsense.  If speakers sound dull, then there is something more fundamentally wrong with them.  Quite often their dynamic response can be related to their efficiency, impedance load curves and sensitivity.  Some speakers wont sound right because they need a lot of juice running through them (they need to be driven by amps with sufficient dynamic headroom) whilst others may sound very dynamic with a handful of watts.  Neither of these things has anything to do with how flat their response is...that's simply a measure of how accurately voiced they are so that the output mirrors the recorded medium response.

[Deleted User]

I have a day job , it involves a lot of reading , indeed I should be doing it now . I don't read about hifi theory as a rule , I steal ideas and i try then and listen to them , If i likey i keep them . I am a first principle empiricist .

of the eight or so mid bass drivers I have tried this mod on i have preferred it and everything you say is negated by my personal experience . I am not threatened by your opposition to my pissing about with drivers designed for x-overs so i am curious as your verbose , passionate rebuttal to my posts and your slightly condescending "if its good enough for you fine ,but its just wrong" stance .

It may be you are replying to the fact that I am DQ and Gerald of other pastures and not what i have actually said on this forum , if this is the case then I understand .

Docfoster

As a man who owns cubes [ you not me ] I am surprised you feel it possible to go back to a speaker with a x-over .

I fear I am now condemned to modifying all the speakers I will own for life ,as every time I hear a x-over mid/bass I miss the immediacy , coherency , detail and rhythm of a directly coupled bass driver .

Hi Daniel.

You're feeling surprised that I can like a crossovered speaker to one without.

I preferred the Cubes to the Dynaudio Audience 82s that I had at the time. The Dynaudios were big 3 way floorstanders with crossovers. The "immediacy" that you mention with regard to speakers without crossovers was definitely one way in which the Cubes appealled to me.

I bought the Goodwoods cheap last year. The Goodwoods are big 3 way floorstanders with crossovers. When I bought them they were "fun" rather than "good" and did not threaten the Cubes in my system.
I did like their bass and scale though and was interested to see what Paul (PAC / RFC) could do with them, having been impressed by Paul and his huge Fidelo speakers.

The Goodwoods made 2 visits to Paul during which he made many changes (including new tweeters, new internal wiring, new binding posts. internal bracing, and completely redesigned crossovers).
After Paul's work, I certainly preferred the Goodwoods to the Cubes. To my ears Paul's work gave the Goodwoods immediacy, coherency, detail and rhythm, as well as a realistic smoothness and dynamism.

I could not tell you what aspects of the sound from the Goodmans are attributable to which aspects of Paul's modifications as I did not listen to the speakers in between each and every individual modification. I can only guess that the crossover redesign played a significant part in making the Goodwoods more listenable to me. I know Paul put a lot of work into designing the crossovers.

I'm not sure what tentaive general hypotheses regarding crossovers that I can make from this. Pehaps:
1. That designing a good crossover is very difficult;
2. Some speaker designs have crossovers that are not well designed;
3. That a speaker with no cross over can sound better than a speaker with a (bad(?)) crossover and;
4. That Paul designs very good crossovers (he designs very good sounding speakers full stop).

As a foot note, my recent fitting of some replacement and recently reconed Goodwood bass drivers has changed the sound to such an extent that some crossover tweaking / redesign is required. I am hopeful that the new drivers can be "better" than the older ones, but at present are not optimally integrated into the overal speaker, as the RFC crossovers were designed around the old drivers. I have no hesitation in wheeling out my cheque book again as I have complete confidence in Paul's electronics knowledge and engineering expertise.

PAC

I have a day job , it involves a lot of reading , indeed I should be doing it now . I don't read about hifi theory as a rule , I steal ideas and i try then and listen to them , If i likey i keep them . I am a first principle empiricist .

of the eight or so mid bass drivers I have tried this mod on i have preferred it and everything you say is negated by my personal experience . I am not threatened by your opposition to my pissing about with drivers designed for x-overs so i am curious as your verbose , passionate rebuttal to my posts and your slightly condescending "if its good enough for you fine ,but its just wrong" stance .

It may be you are replying to the fact that I am DQ and Gerald of other pastures and not what i have actually said on this forum , if this is the case then I understand .

 So you think that using actual knowledge instead of supposition is being condescending?  )

I was not commenting with ANY agenda.  I couldn't care less where else you post nor who you are, that's your affair.  Neither was I being condescending.  I was pointing out some truths RE design since by your own admission you don't have the grounding in the subject.  I was only adding opinion based on experience and indeed do have a little more than a smattering of understanding on the subject.  That you don't by your own admission hardly makes my comments condescending now does it?

I rebut only factually incorrect or misleading statements, so if the cap fits wear it. It was not a general rebuttal of what your ears tells you, nor was it (to use your flowery terminology) "passionate".  Indeed, read what was said and you'll see that I said that what matters is what you think about what your speakers sound like.  People don't need telling to know what they like.  It is people who pass personal opinion off as fact that leave themselves open to challenge or where they make misleading statements.  I really am not looking for any arguments (couldn't be bothered, life's way too short).  If you want to "piss about" as you so eloquently put it with your own crossovers, then do so to your heart's content.  Why on earth would I have any objection to that?  Why even use the word "objection"?  I didn't use it, so don't put words into my mouth.  What you do is your own affair.  I was merely responding to explain why it is a misconception (and misleading) to surmise from your own experience that speakers with crossovers cant have rhythm, coherence etc etc. It was not a rebuttal of what you hear so no need to be so unnecessarily defensive (and offensive).

Docfoster

Just for a while. I don't want my thread locked for good!
Perhaps we'll split this later into a separate thread on crossovers. :-)

EDIT: I've now done that. I'll reopen this in the morning.

Clearly things were getting a bit heated. Nothing too terrible so far, and I haven't modded anything. At the same time, I feel it is opportune to say that while disagreements of opinion are fine, please remember to take the care and time to voice them in such a way as to minimise the chances of things taking a turn for the worse.

[Deleted User]

I try to respect the ethos of the forum I am on and so I will move matter forward by explaining my naïve position in simple terms.
the musical signal is contained in the electrical signal that goes from source to amp to speakers .
My findings are that capacitors , inductors and resistors on a bass driver noticeably diminish the signal , they filter it , take something away . That something is important to the realistic and enjoyable portrayal of music for me . The signal does not escape intact from a cross-over .
This may cause audible problems vis-a-vis presenting a driver with a full frequency signal , but such problems do not outweigh the problems caused by x-over and they can be overcome by doping and our room arrangements .
So for me x-overs take away more than they give . There is a long and respected history of x-overless bass drivers , from NVA to royd to epos .
I tried the idea and liked it a lot and simply urge others to try . That what hifi is for, its a lot of fun .

PAC

Whatever.

Docfoster

I have edited Daniel's above post to ensure that it's tone and content are true to its opening statement.
The same will be done to future posts and/or members will be removed.

[Deleted User]

That leaves PAC unaltered , that is unfair !!

Docfoster

You are at liberty to leave Daniel. If you object to the moderating style here there are many other audio forums with different approaches.

Colin

.

Docfoster

I have removed Daniel. His (edited) comments remain.

Stupinder

To use a studio analogy, both electrical (crossovers) and mechanical (doping etc) solutions are trying to fix things in the mix rather than ensuring things are right from the off.
I do believe that crossovers add something detrimental to the music you hear and as such I would prefer that a simple crossover, or no crossover at all is used.
To get to this you need to start with properly designed drivers, not some off the shelf design that you try to fix. Of course this takes time in r and d and money on the part of the manufacturer and so it's far easier to take a relatively inexpensive driver design and get it sorted afterwards with whatever method you think works best for your ears...or budget.
Personally I think folk are looking at this from the wrong perspective and should get back to basics and use properly designed drivers that do away with the need for complex crossovers.

All that said I find i can enjoy my tunes with speakers that use no crossovers (like the ones i'm listening to at the mo') or ones using more complex crossovers....

Docfoster

To use a studio analogy, both electrical (crossovers) and mechanical (doping etc) solutions are trying to fix things in the mix rather than ensuring things are right from the off.
I do believe that crossovers add something detrimental to the music you hear and as such I would prefer that a simple crossover, or no crossover at all is used.
To get to this you need to start with properly designed drivers, not some off the shelf design that you try to fix. Of course this takes time in r and d and money on the part of the manufacturer and so it's far easier to take a relatively inexpensive driver design and get it sorted afterwards with whatever method you think works best for your ears...or budget.
Personally I think folk are looking at this from the wrong perspective and should get back to basics and use properly designed drivers that do away with the need for complex crossovers.

All that said I find i can enjoy my tunes with speakers that use no crossovers (like the ones i'm listening to at the mo') or ones using more complex crossovers....

Thanks Stu. :-)
Do you have any specific cross over designs / speakers that exemplify the level of simplicity in crossovers that you consider optimal?

Stupinder

I do have speakers I can say I really enjoy but it would be unfair of me to name them here i think.
From a crossover design perspective my knowledge on electronics etc is precisely bugger all!! All i can say is my ears say that less is more.
I'm just about to put a down payment on a pair of speakers without crossovers if that helps at all and may explain my own preference.
I've visited a few manufacturers recently and all of them seem to start with the driver and the work up a design once that is sorted. They however, are brands that make their own drivers for their speakers.

Dan

The other issue that cn be considered when using single driver designs is correct cabinet implementation - as detrimental to the sound as a crossover on multi way driver designs can be.

I've heard good and bad feom both camps and currently on to pairs of completely different speakers, one being of the single driver type and one with multiple drivers, both have great attributes and signatures to the sound but neither outright outperforms the other.

The way I see it is if the crossover is carefully thought out and as minimalist as possible the speaker can deliver things single drivers just can't and if the enclosure/cabinet design is correct a single driver can delivers attributes a multiway just can't.

Then there's the active crossover route....

PAC

I hear what you're saying Stu and agree whole heartedly that very carefully selected and matched drivers are important but crossovers need NOT remove ANYTHING from the music.  It is down to misconception and lack of understanding (to be blunt) as to how this myth has propagated.  You can use simple doped solutions to mid woofers within very specific parameters of size, resonance characteristics and the like but ultimately uyou will always be limited to a small number of drivers that can be treated in this manner and even then, it is virtually IMPOSSIBLE to get consistency into the doping process and almost as impossible to get a linear response.

Crossovers, properly designed and implemented take nothing away...absolutely nowt.  They are there simply to effect the BEST crossover characteristics and to effect the flattest crossover response with LOWEST distortion.  You could argue then that they conserve the signal attributes, NOT detract from it.

When it comes to passive crossovers, there are really very few of 3rd order or above that are exceptionally well implemented as things can and do start to become very complex and very expensive.  It is not impossible at all, but where higher order crossovers are concerned, they then do start to have implications on efficiency and sound and become very difficult to achieve good phase accuracy, especially odd order above 2nd order.

I have never heard a passive 4th order crossover speak that I've liked much. To my mind, anything over 3rd order needs to be active and the solution applied between pre/power amps or between source/integrated amp and the speakers then driven actively.

For a vast majority of designs however, 2nd and 3rd order, done properly have loads of merits.  Power handling is improved for mid and tweeter units, distortion reduced and the most linear response curve from woofers can be harnessed.  What's not to like about that?  The difference between a good and bad design are though significant.  Many mass produced designs are done on the cheap using a mix of 1st/2nd or 1st/3rd order.  I wont name names, but I have had several major manufacturer's speakers in for crossover redesgin and have been appalled at how poorly they have been implemented.

 

It is simply untrue that you can achieve mechanically the same degree of accuracy and linearity and with consistency between speakers, by doping. It is more hit and miss that you might think. 

To address a point of yours Dan, crossovers are generally as minimalist as they NEED to be.  You will find some 2nd order designs with just 4 components per crossover whilst other 2nd order designs may have 20 components per crossover.  The need is defined by the driver design and response itself.  resonance peaks need taming for modern metallised and ceramic cones which all have horrible resonance peaks, so notch filters area a must.  For achieving low crossover points, tweeters also sometimes need notch filters to squash their highish distortion levels at lower resonance points.  these filters are NOT directly in the signal path but shunted across positive and negative rails.

Before drawing too many conclusions, people really ought to learn a bit more about what a crossover is, how it is designed, and what its relationship is with specific drivers.  You simply cannot generalise about one way being as valid as another without doing a little homework on it.  I have attempted to outline some of the concerns, but take it that this is NOT a simple subject with simple answers.  it is a complex area of hifi design.  Good speakers rely on 3 main things.  Good driver selection, good cabinet design (appropriate to the driver choice and TS parameters) and good crossover design.  I am very wary about any speaker with just a cap for the tweeter or a very simple crossover because in many cases (note I haven't said "all") it is done for reasons of profitability (ie bung some drivers in a box, get them working without frying voice coils and they'll sell) or because the originator doesn't know how to properly design one.

Stupinder

I wouldn't say a flat frequency response is the be all and end all if I'm absolutely frank, there's a whole lot more going on than that single measurement! .
Crossovers are audible and that's a fact as far as my ears are concerned. some are done well (however they measure) and some aren't.
I've got a set of speakers here for review at the mo that the world and its wife say measure brilliantly and sound great....not to my ears and they've been sent back...now I may well be deaf but i can hear the (presumably) flat crossover playing havoc with the overall sound... They use well known drivers, great components.......

gus3049

It just seems to me that a lot of people are so convinced by their own methods that they can't see/admit how it could be done any other way. 

I have speakers with very complex crossovers and some with very simple crossovers and with no damping in the cabinets at all. Both sound very good although I have to agree with Stu that I prefer the more lively presentation of the simple version. The LS35a s are not too bad to my ears though!!

That may just be because that is a good speaker of course but it doesn't change the fact that there is more than one way of doing the job - as in most things.

It helps not to be too dogmatic in this world. Thats my job.

Stupinder

It just seems to me that a lot of people are so convinced by their own methods that they can't see/admit how it could be done any other way. 

I have speakers with very complex crossovers and some with very simple crossovers and with no damping in the cabinets at all. Both sound very good although I have to agree with Stu that I prefer the more lively presentation of the simple version. The LS35a s are not too bad to my ears though!!

That may just be because that is a good speaker of course but it doesn't change the fact that there is more than one way of doing the job - as in most things.

It helps not to be too dogmatic in this world. Thats my job.

What this fella said :-) Vive la difference...

PAC

People are free to believe in what they will.  If NOT achieving a flat response (ie true to the recording in terms of output response), decent phase accuracy and low distortion isn't a commendable target for a good designer, then I don't know what is as that is the whole point about maintaining true high-fidelity.  Most good speaker designers know and appreciate this.  My opinion remains, that you cannot generalise about one way being as valid as another, and I have already given my own reasons why so won't press the point any further. I'd also challenge any golden ears to pick out a crossover if done properly.  It's only one part of speaker design and shouldn't be viewed in isolation from speaker choice or cabinet design.  All of these things affect response as does the listening room. People have free choice and will no doubt weight up things for themselves.  

gus3049

People have free choice and will no doubt weight up things for themselves.  

I believe this was our point

Stupinder

I maintain that crossovers are audible and that the best crossover is no crossover...or as near to this as possible! The point I am making is that many people think they can fix mediocre drivers and their faults with a crossover. To my mind a better starting point is to have drivers that are built to need as little "after-market" manipulation as possible by way of the crossover. Sadly building your own drivers to meet the needs of your speakers isn't possible for most companies and so compromises (or fixing it in the mix) have to be made.
Flat frequency response is indeed an ideal, but it is not the be all and end all. In a near or mid-field monitor, in a studio environment then flat frequency response is essential...but I don't listen to speakers in a studio environment any more.
If a flat frequency response was the panacea it's claimed to be then every Tom, Dick and Harry would be able to knock out speakers based on them measuring accurately.
Accurate measurements are only a part of the story in my opinion and those speakers that measure "best" are not necessarily those that I prefer to listen to.

 

Docfoster

I have no idea about any of this. Tho i note that Paul mentioned phase accuracy, and distortion too.
Stu are you saying that a flat frequency response is necessary but not sufficient, or that it is not necessary, or that it is not desirable?

gus3049

I think if you look at some people's preferences you will see things that have anything but a flat frequency response. I'm thinking of horn loudspeakers particularly which seem to have nasty humps all over the place. But.....they do things in a way that some people find attractive. I have a friend who is into horns and he thinks my Quad57's are totally boring.

I think that all Stu and I are really saying is that whilst there are some things that 'appear' to be obviously desirable, they are no guarantee that everyone will like them. There just isn't a one size fits all solution. and dare I say it, hi-fi and music are not necessarily the same thing.

Stupinder

I'm saying that a flat (or reasonably flat) frequency response is only a part of what goes into making a great speaker. I would imagine, though I don't know (I'm not a loudspeaker designer) that measuring frequency response is not enough to assure a great sounding speaker in the home.
My main point though is that crossovers are a necessary evil and that a crossover's negative impact can be minimised if the drivers used are right from the off ie not as much fixing it in the mix needs to done.

PAC

Actually guys, I am not arguing with what either of you are saying as I have ALREADY mentioned the importance of driver choice and cabinet design as being equally as important and if one can cut down on crossover components and still get something that has as flat a response as possible (I maintain contrary to other opinions on this thread that it remains an ideal end goal) and that decent phase response and low distortion are maintained, then all's good.  We are, believe it or not, on the same hymn sheet.

What I do take umbridge with, especially (and no disrespect intended here at all) is the misconception that all crossovers are bad an something must be removed from the signal.  That is a gross over simplification and not at all true and I have no axe to grind here other than being an experienced engineer who has designed many speakers and crossovers.

Sadly, very few drive units can be used crossover-less, that just plain physics so they remain an integral and essential part of a speaker design.  The best solution is the active solution, but for most people, this entails separate amps for bass/mid/treble and additional complexity and cost.  

For the most part, most of the very best loudspeakers available today (or ever for that matter) used carefully crafted crossovers as a necessity and I simply don't buy that you can "hear" the crossover in each and every case.

jandl100

Coo. This has been fun - although probably not for the mods.

In my own experience of hearing and owning lots of speakers, I think there is a balance to be had, and that balance will depend on each person's own priorities and preferences.

The pursuit of a flat freq response uber alles, as it were, led to the "BBC Era" designs of Spendor etc, which to my ears are often the aural equivalent of watching paint dry.

The other extreme are single driver speakers, using Lowther drivers etc - to me these throw the musical baby out with the bathwater, with clarity and transient speed achieved at the cost of unacceptable levels of bandwidth restriction, resonances and colouration.

Personally, I've ended up (over 4 years now!) with a speaker with complex crossovers and 6 drivers apiece!
I don't think I have lost anything by doing so.
Perhaps it just takes good design to use complex xovers properly?

Just my opinion - feel free to differ!

gus3049

Jerry,

No argument from me!!

All I ever criticise is the 'my way is right' attitude. There is room for different approaches and clearly there are fans of each. Some people like watching paint dry and some would rather bungee jump.

I'll stick with the Quads.

uglymusic

Coo. This has been fun - although probably not for the mods.  

No problems for the mods recently, Jerry ;-)

Personally, I've not said much because I'm not really in any camp as far as speakers are concerned. 

They either do it for me or they don't. I've owned and used all sorts of things, but I've not found an approach that I can say categorically gives me the kind of sound I like.

PAC

Gus

I haven't any issues with what you've said.  What I originally responded to (until I was blue in the face!) was that just because something uses crossovers, complex or otherwise, that does not automatically qualify it to have lost something or be dull or whatever.  The only other point made (and here, note there was no comment on what it might sound like) was that very simple crossoverless drivers often compromise the final solution.  Nothing more, nothing less.  As Jerry rightly points out, it is about good design practice, pure and simple.  I can't make it any plainer than that so shall we drop the accusations?  It's clear the message was lost in translation and you (and others) have taken exception to having someone point out why something might not be ideal as a solution.  I'll know better in future.

uglymusic

Everyone: Can I remind you to be a little less passionate, please?

Who'd have known that speaker crossovers were so incendiary?

Group hug! (as others on Chews would say).

gus3049

You call that passion??

What a sheltered life you must have led

uglymusic

You'd be surprised.

gus3049

Nah, I'm too old to be surprised by anything :-)

jandl100

Anyone would think it was a cable thread ~:>

gus3049

tut tut )

Alan

As is often the case, there isn't really much disagreement here at all. It's the manner in which some thoughts are expressed that irritates.

This thread needs some thoroughly irreverent trolling, it's far too pompous imo. :-q

Docfoster

As is often the case, there isn't really much disagreement here at all. It's the manner in which some thoughts are expressed that irritates.

This thread needs some thoroughly irreverent trolling, it's far too pompous imo. :-q

How's that Mrs. Brown... ;-)

uglymusic

I think we've exhausted crossovers.

Let's talk about something else, folks.