Are first order crossovers best?


Here's an interesting item IMO. In looking for some speaker cables, and possibly interconnects too, I've been hearing from the various manufacturers of these wires a question regarding the crossover in my speakers.

"What order crossover is in them, first, second, third, etc?"

I believe mine (VR4 JR's), are fourth order.

The thought that comes to my mind is this...What does that matter? Should I care what sort of ordered crossover there is in a speaker? How big or small a part does it play?

At this point I have no answers for the above Q's.... if I could have your thoughts and experiences it would be more than appreciated to shed some light on this currently dimly lit subject...

Thanks all...
blindjim

Showing 9 responses by unsound

I'm only guessing here. Perhaps because some cables purport to maintain absolute phase better than others. Only single driver and 1st order cross-over speakers maintain absolute phase. Of course the skeptic might say that sellers feel the need to provide a reason for all the cable options and a means to qualify their suggestions.
Gmood1, you'r absolutely correct. The crossover is only 1 design aspect necessary to maintain correct phase in a multi-driver speaker. It is how ever a pre-requiste. My narrow answer was in response to Blindjim's question as to how it may effect cable selection. Mind you I'm a bit dubious about the very premise of cross-overs determining cable choices. As to whether they're best, well to me the best would be no cross-over. Unfortunately, that would usually would require compromises I'm not willing to accept. That said, I favor 1st order cross-over designs. I fully accept that other may have different priorites and that other options may better suit their desires.
I don't think many speaker designers would use the same drivers for a 1st order cross-over as they would for a 4th order cross-over. The very reason for using a 4th order would probably be to avoid that much over lap and to maximize particular drivers strengths. On paper a 1st order-cross over appears to be the simplest and cheapest. What not may be immeadeately obvious is that most manufacturers who choose 1st order crossovers go to great lengths to use first order cross overs towards a final goal. That goal being a time and phase coherence at the listening position. Thiel even goes further to present the amp with a steady load. These cross overs are far from simple. They compensate for driver irregularites, box resonances, etc. First order cross overs are only 1 step towards a final goal, these cross overs are tweaked along with many other designer considerations. The cabinets are time aligned which can add greatly to manufacturing costs. The drivers themsleves usually need to be capable of greater range. To suggest that first order cross-overs are a cost cutting decision is short sighted. Unless one is designing their own speaker, judging by isolated compenents to determine the value of a speaker is fraught with problems.
Gmood1, While I'm not sure that Thiel uses a Zoebel, I think that he does. What I'm suggesting goes beyond that though. Thiel loads the cross overs so that they present a fairly constant impedance.
Blindjim, with all due respect You might be a bit off base with some though certainly not all of your assumptions. Many of these issues can and have been argued here ad nasuem. While I admire your approach, perhaps it might be best to just use your ears and determine what you seem to like and then determine if there seems to be any correlation or similarity between those systems/components. From there you might find a springboard into the archives and into the current and future forum to confirm your impressions and perhaps open your horizons to other gear that might fit into your personal preferential hieracrchy. Good luck.
Eldartford, just trying to keep it simple here. That's part of the reason I was suggesting that one has to consider a speaker as a system and that taking one parameter from the whole can be problematic.
Brian, on the surface a 1st order crossover would seem to be simpler, having less parts in the signal path. How ever when in practice it depends on the designer's priorities. A Meadowlark cross over might look very different than a Thiel cross over. There are good arguments for both approaches.
Eldartford, while obviously somewhat esoteric I think the original Walsh driver Ohms could be included with ES drivers as being cross over free. As you said (and I completely agree) that cross overs are a necessay evil, even ES drivers have limitations with regards to frequency range at typicaly desired volume levels. On another note when do we seperate mechincal from electrical cross overs?
Blindjim, with all due respect your originaly posted thread wasn't very specific.
Merry Christmas