How good is the crossover in your loudspeakers?

The link @ned1000 posted above is the second video of a 2-part series Danny Richie made on the pair of Wilson Audio Watt/Puppy Series 8 loudspeakers a customer sent him.

Here’s part 1:

https://youtu.be/Tma9jFZ3-3k?si=nJTc2qlLVhmK3WVR

And here’s part 2:

https://youtu.be/pIt2pcQvf6M?si=RzZbPLKteA4DqhaZ

I imagine there may be a fair number of negative responses to what Danny has to say in the videos. All the usual arguments against Danny, with the added factor of Wilson being such a revered brand. All I can say is: I don’t consider it a given that David Wilson or his son are better loudspeaker designers than Danny Richie. In my opinion these two videos actually make the case for the exact opposite. You are of course free to disagree.

You may not be aware of the fact that Steven Stone gave GR Research "The Best Sound Cost No Object" award at the 2013 Rocky Mountain Audio Fest in The Absolute Sound. In one of the two videos above Danny talks about the sound he heard in the Wilson Audio room at RMAF.

Randy is completely divorced from realty (ignore the stuffed ‘ugly’ cat). 
https://youtu.be/_qt94hyrkHg?si=wtqrQQVXiPdHvXxB

This video blows it open ⬇️

https://youtu.be/gH-wjM7Nsrg?si=wxO1Hb2bnT30StF7

Being one who has "hot rodded" speakers for several decades (including earning a patent for my own design):

It is impossible to describe the before/after results of "upgrades" unless you strap yourself down in front of the speakers and actually listened to them.  Even those with excellent command of vocabulary, and engineering degrees can't fully encapsulate the sonic benefits of "doing it better."

My goal is never to "paint a mustache on the Mona Lisa", but rather respect the intent of the original designer who, perhaps, would have  benefited from being free from production considerations, ease of in field service, time and budget constraints. And, of course, newer materials and newer "thinking" that were not around when the speaker was developed in many cases.  Not long ago, I saw a promotional video of a well-respected high-end manufacturer introducing their new "flagship" model, highlighting the assembly process.  A pair of good $30 side cutters and a roll of silver solder would have immediately improved the focus and detail, while reducing the harshness of the upper midrange  As I stated before: "production efficiency, and ease of service in the field." Price: over $40k/pair.

We perform mods on speakers in various price ranges, including vintage speakers.  I am still surprised (often stunned) just how much music you can get out of these boxes via cheap and/or vintage drivers when you get things out of way that make them sound worse -- or just open them up, and let them play.

As pertains to the desirability of attaining flat freq. response the videos @lalitk  refers to are informative. So, guy designs his speakers to measure exactly to his liking, result is nothing close to flat freq. response, the chances that others will find pleasant sound quality with these  in great doubt. While subjectivity certainly plays a role in speaker design, one needs to start with good objective engineering. Flat freq. response, proper phase, impedance curves, etc. Dannie finds fault with subjectively designed speakers, applies objectively determined optimizations. I presume some like their subjectively designed speakers since their preferences align  exactly with designer. Still, for most, having properly engineered speakers should be foundational, you can tune to your heart's delight with sympathetic component matching, room treatments, etc.

Just a note that measured "frequency response" is a static measurement at very low power (1 watt) at a distance of 1 meter.  When things start moving and real power is sent to the drivers, the dynamics will change the tonal balance and things may sound quite different than they measure.