[JLM]

Here's a very promising new speaker company that uses a variety of leading edge technologies:

http://www.4sptech.com/html/1024X768/home/index.htm

Warning, their site has bunches of theory/information to digest.


And here's a recent review (very enthusiastic):

http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/equipment/1003/sptechnology.htm


What do you think?


jeff

[ehider]

Wow, that's one "over the top" review!

After looking at the review and the manufacturer's "theory" link, I think the reviewer may have missed a very important design decision that WILL affect the overall performance of this speaker . This speaker company is VERY convinced that 4th order Linkwiz Riley crossovers are the best choice bar none.   Unfortunately that flies in the face of most other high end speaker designer's findings. Those type of crossovers have many unwanted side effects due to HUGE phase rotations at the crossover regions .

Typically, 4th order issues are VERY audible when doing side by side comparisons with speakers that have first or quasi second order cross-overs (for instance).   It's one HELL of allot easier to design a great measuring speaker (frequency response wise) when you choose 4th order! If these crossovers sounded awesome, why wouldn't every speaker manufacturer would go this route  Any speaker will be able to play louder and cleaner with MUCH lower distortion when it has a 4th order design. Unfortunately, there are sonic side effect due to the phase rotations with 4th order designs that just can't be totally eliminated   . This is what worries me about this particular speaker .

  Here is a relevant example for comparison's sake: Many Revel owners are finding problematic sonic issues with their speakers. At first, most audiophiles are damn impressed with the "clean" and very low distortion sound that is typical of Revel speakers. (The Revels also have veeeeery smooth frequency responses and measurements). After time (or comparisons with other phase coherent audiophile speaker) some Revel owners find something amiss with their speakers . Many owners aren't sure they can put their finger on the problem, but something just isn't right.  I've known quite few Revel owners to take their speakers to high end Salon's and/or audiophiles houses to do A/B comparisons with other speaker designs. This is when the discovery process typically begin . Most owners find that their Revels are somehow lacking  some of the details that other First order crossover speakers seem to get right.  

I am still surprised that no one has "called out" Revel on their "cheap and dirty" design decision! It's a damn shame because Revel has unbelievable resources and facilities to make a great sounding speaker with first order crossovers. I've talked to the designer Kevin Voeks (sp?) myself about his crossover choice.   He was very short and to the point stating that it's been "proven" that no one can differentiate phase in listening tests (i.e. his choice to use 4th order crossovers). All I have to say is that other high end speaker companies are killing themselves with all the work required making 1st order designs when they could easily go with 4th order if this is true Don't believe this lame brain nonsense for a second

Of course there is a small chance that this particular speaker company finally figured a way around all of the sonic downsides of 4th order designs as compared to first order crossovers Then again, this would be an historic event since  no other speaker company in the history of speaker design has managed to do this feat yet

[Double Ugly]

If I understand your post, you're suggesting the author-

(1) "may have missed" the fact that SP Tech believes in and uses the Linkwitz-Riley 4th-order crossover (I'll take your word for it...may have missed it when I scanned the site), and

(2) seem to imply he is either unable to detect the obvious sonic problems associated with their choice or is blissfully unaware.

To review, the author (assuming no embellishment):
- has designed and built speakers for over 30 years
- has in those years "been an avid listener to a wide variety of loudspeakers."
- is an experienced musician and listener
- and has accomplished well over 10,000 hours of professional mastering.

I wouldn’t know Bill Roberts (the author) if he walked up and bit me, but based on his experience, don't you think it highly unlikely that all the negatives you listed about their crossover of choice were lost on him?  

I have no reason to believe he did anything but what we're all supposed to do - he listened.  I think he listened with his presumably highly trained ears, compared the speakers with what he's heard in 30+ years in the industry, and unceremoniously dumped his favorite reference monitors for the past 27 years for these.  

Over the top?  I dunno...does it get any more over the top than replacing your favorite monitors?

DU

[ehider]

Ah yes, experience.......

Kevin Voeks of Revel has even MORE "experience". He has been in high end audio just as long and has the absolute best listening and testing facilities in the world Yet he too made this 4th order design choice even though many Revel owners latter find out the problematic nature of his loudspeakers (as compared to excellent 1st order designs which have the ability to flesh out more details if all things are otherwise equal).

My mentor always used to tell me: "Never let schooling get in the way of your education".   IMHO, I also believe that I should never let "experience" get in the way of my education. Experience should teach us what is better through "lessons learned". Unfortuantely, in many humans "experience" also has a way of re-enforcing INCORRECT stereotypes, ideas and concepts. Have you ever heard the statement; "he is set in his ways". This usually comes from "experience"  

I am seriously wondering if the speaker company is "set in his ways" due to his choice of using a 4th order design as being the "best souding". Louder, cleaner playing speaker at high volumes; "Yes"! Best sounding, "NO". There is a better souning crossover choice in my experience!

I would have been VERY impressed if the speaker company's website (not the reviewer necessarily) had stated something like: "we recognize that 4th order crossovers had many issues in other companies speaker designs in the past, but through research and tweaking we have managed to achieve the steep slopes of 4th order WITHOUT the nasty phase rotations". This was NOT stated by the speaker company. They stated that 4th order Linkwitz Riley are the BEST, period! This is NOT a correct statement IMHO (or many audiophiles for that matter) .

Are companies like Avalon, Vandersteen, Thiel, Merlin, Dunlavy, VMPS and Wilson into self punishment?   Their design work would have been MUCH MUCH MUCH easier if they had used 4th order crossovers versus 1st order designs! These company's speakers would have been able to play MUCH louder and sound "cleaner" at high volumes if they had just gone with 4th order crossovers (due to the steep slopes that a 4th order exhibits) . IMHO first order crossover speakers are a BITCH to design correctly unless you have a ton of drivers or the speaker doesn't need to play very loud. Again, why the hell would any speaker designer worth his salt go with 1st orders if there was a 4th order design that sounded just as good

  This is my argument to why ALL 4th order speakers cannot be perfect or considered "absolute reference" designs. (MANY could sound pretty awesome but with inherent phase rotation errors none the less). The nature of all 4th order crossovers is that they exhibit undue phase rotations at the crossover points of each driver. This cannot be entirely avoided and will ultimately be less than a perfect solution as compared to excellent 1st order implementations (for instance).

I must be clear here and state that I DO believe that this speaker must be pretty damn awesome for the reviewer to gush over it so much. I just wanted to point out that it is NOT perfect by any means due to the fact that it has 4th order crossovers. The reviewer is into things like mixing and that requires the ability of the monitor to play very cleanly at high volumes. If I were a betting man, I'd bet this is why the speaker company chose 4th order. Not because they are the most revieling and transparent crossover choice, they're NOT

[nathanm]

Did you guys read the "Our Mission" link?  

http://www.4sptech.com/html/1024X768/control_menu/our_mission/mission2.htm

[Double Ugly]

Did you guys read the "Our Mission" link?  

http://www.4sptech.com/html/1024X768/control_menu/our_mission/mission2.htm

Yes, I did.  Interesting, huh?  

I'm not quite sure what message it is they're trying to get across, but it seems apparent they believe there's more to life than speakers and music.

Novel concept.

DU

[infiniti driver]

Long time lurker, I decided to post.

First of all, I am the reviewer, so no hiding behind a cloak.



 The designer used to work for Crown. After reading their crossover details, their is a distinct point that seems to be left out of this exchange.

From the SP Website:

"All SP Technology products are designed with crossover alignments that include the "acoustic" response of the individual drivers in the final transfer function."

Most realise, a waveguide exibits quasi 18dB/Octave natural passive rolloffs, depending on flare and throat but normally, the passive modes do have an inhibited rolloff. Along with a drivers natural rolloff and the impedance transformation such a waveguide would provide, an electronic first order with the impedance character presented to the driver could give a forth order reponse using first order crossover components. I think the statement made on the SP site quoted above must be considered more carefully before a judgement can be announced. Maybe actually hearing this speaker would present more accurate evaluation?

I have not taken them apart, their are no schematics available. I used my ears and did direct comparisons in a number of rooms with close to 1000 lbs of various equipment. I tend to think that loudspeakers should be for emotional attachment to the music. You should forget you are listening to speakers. This is what they do.

I detect no such phase anomilies at X over FQ and actually, their is a nice phase chart listed on the SP website.

I think this should mean something..

Also, take the review from my standpoint. The loudspeakers do everything I ask them to. nothing more, nothing less. Their are "scads" of fantastic loudspeakers. These are a no risk situation. Also stated in my review, don't just take my word for it, look at what other professionals are saying. I will be happy to do private exchanges using my email tab on the ETM site. I also do not think it is prudent (for me) to exchange on a public forum but it is important to point out some stated facts that reside in detailed reading. If only I did not have those 3 typos (sp) on the review...too late to edit!

Cheers, Happy listening.

[ehider]

Infiniti,

Thank you for providing us with adiitional feedback about these speakers. Your review definately has me wanting to audition them in the near future. I certainly hope you are correct about their crossover choice and the susequent benchmark performance. I have been sooooooo let down in the past by other so-called "break-thru" designs, that I now always take the devil's advocate approach first . It would be great if more audiophiles had access to affordable speakers that were completely devoid of sonic issues. There always seems to be some sort of trade off with affordable speakers until you appraoch or exceed ten thousand mark! That's a boat load of money in my opinion. I'm secretly hoping that this speaker resets the "bang for the buck" catagory. We certainly will all benefit from some fresh ideas in speaker design!

  Now for the big question: Are these speakers the break-thru product that the reviewer implied they were

[infiniti driver]

First of, the nature of any electro-acoustic tranducer at any price point or design is not devoid of sonic issues. Every conceiveable design will have them. The key is to have as few of them, the least objectionable, at a price point that is in the grasp of ownership...by a wide range of consumers.

I listed many compromises. I like the way a Planar loudspeaker handles certain ranges but most cannot cover all the ranges. Maggies, elctrostatics, all of them have compromises. The mids of the ESL57 (Quads) will always excite emotion....but what about that clumpy bass and beaming highs?

        Always remember, ALL loudspeakers will have inherant traits that WILL occur and mainly this is based on associated equipment, listening room and the recording itself plays a major role. Add that up with all the differences in Preamps, wire and cable, power grid and location..and you have it an absolute wonder that any reproduction of music at a state of realism is obtainable at all. When my Dog barks and gets stirred up from hearing a Dog barking through these speakers, I realized with her superior hearing, that she is fooled, that is just a hint of the realism this loudspeaker can provide.

Be forwarned. This speaker likes 500 watts/channel

One fellows love is anothers hate. We all have different tastes. You cannot and will not satisfy all people all the time with any product. I drive a car I happen to like. That does not mean Ford, GM, Volvo, Mercedes or Toyota is going out of business. Loudspeakers, although very subjective can never be totally void of issues. It is minimizing audible issues to a point that they are masked and the music and the emotion comes through, time and time again...should be a loudspeaker designers goal for a wide range of music lovers.  This loudspeaker IMO, does that for me. It is an excellent tool for evauating and protecting the musicians recordings to their fullest fidelity, exposing problems in the recording chain. It is all about the music, human experience. I do not get paid to provide reviews nor do I review anything unless that product is represented to have ultimately high value. You will not see me review a 40K pair of loudspeakers. I feel their are plenty affordable loudspeakers that can satisfy all but the fussiest of users..in their case, a live performance acoustically has fault!


Another thing I put in the review that was subsequently edited out is the fact that for large rooms and huge systems and a no holes barred system, the timepieces can be delivered, splayed in pairs of 5 with 20 amplifiers. System cost is over 50K for those who must have that level of SPL. I have not heard it but it may show up at a convention in the near future. This system is said to provide bottom extention in the teens with the 10 woofer combination. Unlimited dynamics to over 130dB


Do not confuse this with the "end to all" loudspeakers. No such product exists. They do so many things right..but all loudspeakers have "issues" All of them. Pick from what has the least..and ones you can live with.

Over the years, I am blessed with a good percentage of my listening being comprised of actual musicians in the acoustic realm. To possess Master tapes and recordings of super fidelity, also is something the average or even the advanced audiophile may never experience. Comparing what is heard acoustically, to the final product is key. If you put on a POP recording of good quality (Brothers at Arms, Dire Straits is a good example) and it sounds like the musicians are in front of you...you have great loudspeakers. I dare say, I have no desire to spend 20K or 50K on speakers. I have heard speakers that cost 1/4 million and probably heard 70% of the loudspeakers in extended circumstances in the 7 to 30K range. It is about perspective. I am probably the only person that thinks that most speakers out there have way too much bottom. Speakers designed flat in a free field environment will never be accurate in a consumer or studio setting.


Quote:

Now for the big question: Are these speakers the break-thru product that the reviewer implied they were ?


At this price point?, Yes.  

With the money back gurantee? Certainly. You have no risk.

Remember, I am an equipment reviewer with ETM.com I in no way at this writing have any finacial, business stake or influence with the manufacturer. My opinions reflect a quinessential value for the product being offered. However, my relationship with the manufacturer is subject to change. I like them enough to reccomend them. This in itself is a form of promotion. IF they sucked, I certainly would point that out as well. I try to review products that represent value. One day I may review something that was over hyped and you will see my opinion in the review. I have had seveal products that have been hyped by major magazines that I felt represented POOR value and I have noted this in several forums. Look at certain speakers/products of high end.. that show up on the used market after around 3 months of ownership. you know who they are...don't you!

Cheers and happy listening. It is all about the music and human expression.

[_scotty_]

What hasn't been brought out in this discussion yet, is the fact that neither of the two designers has any choice in the matter of crossover slopes, they both must employ at least 24db/oct slopes in their designs. Mr. Roberts
has to use a steep slope crossover because horns have a specific low frequency cut off point dictated by their physical size. When the horn is operated below this frequency severe response anomalies occurr. If this problem is to be avoided they have to be turned off and quickly at or before this frequency. In Mr. Voeks case he has chosen metal cone drivers which have a narrow region where their frequency response is flat. Outside that region the bass and the midrange ring like a bell and show as much as a 15db spike in their output at the metal cones' resonant frequency. These drivers frequently require notch filters and high order networks to supress this oil can resonance problem. In both cases this
passive parts approach is inadequate to cure the problems the drivers bring to the table and leave the music still alive after the sonic bandaid has been applied. A digital
crossover is a potential solution for both these designs.

[infiniti driver]

Agreed. I am now using them bi-amped, even though I have no desire to do this. I did it for experimentation sake. To me, whatever the component choice and configuration in the passive network is, it sounds more coherent that the 6dB/Octave active crossover at 950 I am employing.

Basied on this, I suspect a pretty fast rolloff on the woofer with the high pass being more passively controlled due to impedance matching to the waveguide. Of course, trade secrets or taking this speaker apart and dignosing the parts is not an option I would consider.

I still maintain that part of this crossover is being achieved passively through impedance transformation, in the ultra lows, to the x over region, to the rolloff at the top. The waveguide should not be confused with a horn IMHO. The driver back there looks like an esotarT330D, but the manufacturer has not disclosed the actual manufacturer of said element. Could be anything...but it definitly provides full output coverage at 1000hZ, used by itself, it goes very low, well into to mids...almost dark mids. It does the OOOOOO sound nicely, driven alone.

[_scotty_]

Agreed. I am now using them bi-amped, even though I have no desire to do this. I did it for experimentation sake. To me, whatever the component choice and configuration in the passive network is, it sounds more coherent that the 6dB/Octave active crossover at 950 I am employing.

I still maintain that part of this crossover is being achieved passively through impedance transformation, in the ultra lows, to the x over region, to the rolloff at the top. The waveguide should not be confused with a horn IMHO. ...

 I would suggest that the the speakers apparent claimed reasonably flat response curve shown on the companies website reflects the crossover slopes employed in its design.

[infiniti driver]

When using external devices (as in transmission line and waveguide surfaces) the output fQ response can be a deception of what goes on electronically. Figure the passive elements of the design and how they react to back EMF to an amplifier through the crossover. All of this is proper balance. One cannot guess actual crossover slopes or implementation by looking simply at the fQ curve. Agreed?

I think is about how they sound with reproduced music and emotional response. Specs, curves and technical data cannot describe your personal response after extending listening. This is why I gave no advanced technical data in the review, rather, left it up to their website to cover questions of technical aspect!

A solo Violin recorded in my studio, played back on the TP2's reveiled whether upstroke or downstroke was used with the bow. This is pretty reveiling to actually imagine the instrument, playing.


In my review, I reserved the techobabble. It is about reproducing music and emotion is why I gave this product a good review. I just watched some PBS with them. I forgot I was listening to speakers. I think this is the key.

Cheers and happy listening!

[JLM]

Thanks to all who have responded, especially Infiniti driver.

To be honest the 4th order crossover sent up the biggest red flag in my mind as well.  Thanks for the explaination.

I just returned from a weekend at Steve Deckert's place (he is Decware) with other Decware forum members.  It means a great deal to be able to dialogue with manufacturers and reviewer, even more so on a public venue.

It seems to be a wonderful time to be in high-end audio with the SP Timepieces and Sony DVD/receivers turning the audio world on it's head.

As a long time transmission line fan it's interesting that a couple of twists on the concept have been introduced recently that are both radical yet hard to deny (this speaker and the VBT subs).

jeff

[Tbadder1]

Wow, I'd love to hear these speakers or their big brothers, the Continuum.  The descrption in the review is exactly the kind of listening I'd like to participate in on a daily basis.  My question is, the Timepieces are rated at 85db@8ohms, and the Continuum at 88@4ohms; which is easier to drive? And will 100watts per channel (Levinson 383) at 8ohms be enough to get 95/100spl?

[infiniti driver]

You should easily get that level of dB. Remember, dB 1W/1M or 2.83VRMS is for one speaker. With the pair, you enjoy another typical 3dB.

All things mathamatical, lests look at this for example:

First, you will not run the Levinson at 100Watts RMS because their would be no room for peaks, Typical music listening at 10 watts RMS with 10dB of headroom would give the pair:

Pair=3 more dB Sensitivity.

91dB 1W
101dB 10 W
Peak 111dB 100W

This is at one meter.

I would say it would be safe to say that the amplifier in a mid sized room should be able to reach the volume you desire.

I don't think the levinson amplifier would have any problems with a 4ohm nominal load.

[infiniti driver]

PS.

I had conversation with the designer of this Loudspeaker system tonight on the phone, showd him the thread and he confirmed everything that I wrote about them.

If you would like (or think it is prudent, OR NOT) for him to join in this conversation, feel free to ask him either on his website if that is ok with the site and you folks here. Any and all technical questions "sans" design secrets, he says he would be pleased to answer.

It is up to the protocol of the Webmaster/Moderators whether this is a good idea or not.

Ask and you shall receive.

Personally, no words here or otherwise will ACCURATELY protray your feelings toward this product, in your room, with your system. Based on this fact, if extra interaction with the designer is needed, let him know. He is aware of the thread and if asked, will answer.

I wish to be within the guidelines of this website and rules.


He may post for you to do a private /email message.


Happy listening!

[Sa-dono]

I had conversation with the designer of this Loudspeaker system tonight on the phone, showd him the thread and he confirmed everything that I wrote about them.

If you would like (or think it is prudent, OR NOT) for him to join in this conversation, feel free to ask him either on his website if that is ok with the site and you folks here. Any and all technical questions "sans" design secrets, he says he would be pleased to answer.

It is up to the protocol of the Webmaster/Moderators whether this is a good idea or not.

Ask and you shall receive.

I would gladly welcome another designer/manufacturer here. I only ask he abide by the rules, and hopefully identify himself in his signature. As long as people here have questions regarding the speakers, then he should be extremely helpful. Thanks!

[Aether Audio]

Wow, that's one "over the top" review!

After looking at the review and the manufacturer's "theory" link, I think the reviewer may have missed a very important design decision that WILL affect the overall performance of this speaker :scratch: . This speaker company is VERY convinced that 4th order Linkwiz Riley crossovers are the best choice bar none.  :shake: Unfortunately that flies in the face of most other high end speaker designer's findings. Those type of crossovers have many unwanted side effects d ...

Hello everbody!


My name is Bob Smith and I'm the president and chief engineer of SP Technology.  I just stopped in to see what all the fuss was about.  I guess Bill Roberts' review of our product created some controversy.  I suppose I'm sticking my neck out on the chopping block here but if it helps dispel some partially incorrect notions then it's worth it.

First off, I'm not here to plug our products - don't have to.  That's what reviews are (hopefully) for.  Our products stand in their own defense.  I am only concerned here with the underlying physics of design.  I would hate to see a potential customer turn away from us or any other manufacturer's product because he or she was led to believe a partial truth.  Reference the above quote.  I offer the following for the more technically minded individuals out there that do consider the science behind the design in their decision making.  I'm certainly not trying to impress anyone with my technical knowledge either.

Now first off Mr. Ehider, I'm not here to slam you or suggest that you don't know what you are talking about.  Quite the contrary, you are correct, the fact is well established that higher order filters introduce larger amounts of phase shift than do lower order designs.  But the complete analysis of a design has to take into consideration a multitude of variables, some of which will alter a simple "textbook" interpretation of the facts.  The universe is full of complex phenomena that tend to represent "apparent" paradoxes, refusing to yield their secrets to simplistic linear analysis.

In crossover design, one is concerned with the relative phase between drivers more than with total phase rotation - or at least he/she should be.  The need here is obvious.  If the drivers are not in-phase at crossover then they will not sum to a maximum amplitude.  This does not mean that the speaker will not exhibit a relatively flat response on some pre-designated vertical axis.  If they do though, it will be due to the fact that one or both drivers have a peaked response at crossover to begin with.  This is how many designers manage to get a flat response out of inferior or problematic drivers.  The problem with this approach is that as you move off vertical axis, the response becomes very non-flat and is different depending upon if you move up or down from that point.  

Also, it is a well known fact that the first order (6dB/Oct.) crossover theoretically sums to perfectly flat magnitude AND phase response.  The problems with this crossover are many though.  The frequency and power demands on the drivers chosen for this type crossover are extreme and for full range reproduction, at least one midrange driver is virtually unavoidable.  For arguments sake, if we throw money at the power and frequency response problems, we can make them go away.  What we can't get rid of though is that third driver or the extreme vertical off-axis errors that result.  

Combining the output of two drivers employing a true first order response (which many claim to but don't) presents enough of a challenge to the designer in his/her attempt to minimize the severe off-axis colorations in the vertical plane.  Combining three drivers in this manner virtually guarantees that the "sweet spot" will be very narrow vertically unless the listener is seated a great distance away from the speaker.

One high-end manufacturer has offered what appears to be a solution: make use of coincident driver technology.  If you design the tweeter to co-exist at the center of the midrange driver then you will have eliminated the source of vertical (or horizontal) lobbing errors.  This concept is by no means new except for the fact that, in this instance, it has been applied with a first order crossover design.  This would seem to be an ideal solution to the first order design’s inherent lobbing error issue except that, upon closer inspection we find a whole new level of design complexity and the resulting compromises inherent in co-incident driver design.  

Seeing such technology is, for the most part, public domain and quite mature, virtually all loudspeakers would be built using co-incident drivers if they truly offered a final solution to this problem without introducing even worse ones.  For further reading on the subject an engineering white paper will soon be available on the SP Technology website.  

As I have said, lower order networks often (but not always) exhibit  many problems that I am certain many enthusiasts and certainly most professionals would prefer to avoid.  I could go on further into the effects of vertical lobbing errors, the resulting non-flat reverberant field produced in the listening space, the systems unnecessarily high sensitivity to room placement and the severely limited listening positions that also result, but that is another post.  

Absolute total phase rotation together with frequency amplitude response will reveal the total "group delay" through the system.  This, I believe, is what Mr. Ehider is referring to.  And I strongly agree, group delay has been proven to be audible under certain conditions.  Its most profound effect is upon transient response.  The percussive attacks of musical instruments sound constrained and lack realism when their waveforms are "ripped apart" and smeared by being passed through filters exhibiting large amounts of group delay.  We could conjecture about 3-D information and soundstage being degraded but I am convinced this is more a function of diffraction errors, higher distortion levels, poor resolution and inferior dispersion than the minor delay effects in the 0 - 2 millisecond range that crossovers produce.

Mr. Ehider, what you and many others may not realize is that much research by others has gone into the study of the Linkwitz-Riley 4th order crossover with regards to its effects on transient response.  One study I am aware of (can't recall the names right now) actually showed that it exhibited the best overall response compared to all others except the true first order type.  It does this while also offering all of its many other benefits with regards to driver protection, reduced distortion and idealized vertical lobbing response.  

What you may also not be aware of is that to a certain degree, the delay it does introduce can be somewhat corrected for by simply setting the high frequency driver back further form the plane of the lower frequency driver.  This approach is not a cure-all but it does help improve time alignment considerably.  Another peculiar fact; many do not know that under certain conditions, a highly linear phase response can be obtained by combining a 4th order low-pass network (to the low frequency driver) with a high-pass first order network (to the high frequency driver).  I know this to be fact as I have produced such results in my own laboratory.  This completely flies in the face of conventional thinking.  

Again Mr. Ehider states "It's one HELL of allot easier to design a great measuring speaker (frequency response wise) when you choose 4th order!"  I must ask you, have you ever tried to design AND implement into a massed produced speaker product a 4th order network?  All of the designers out there reading this know the answer to that question.  A fourth order network implemented with the full compliment of componenets is anything but easy to produce.  It is even harder to reproduce on a consistant basis due to component sensitivity.  Try running a Monte Carlo analysis of the component tolerance variations and see what you get.  I've heard of more than one designer stating that they'll never attempt a passive implementation of a fourth order design again!  You did get the "HELL" part right though.

So you see, things are often not as simple as they may seem.  It is wisest if one does not get caught up in the pet theories of others and pass judgment based on an overly simplistic view of the facts.  A little knowledge is not the same as knowing.

To address one last small matter:  Mr. Ehider made the comment that,  "This speaker company is VERY convinced that 4th order Linkwitz-Riley crossovers are the best choice bar none."  This is not true.  In fact, we went out of our way on our website to state that, "Our position is to use what ever works the best in a given application. While it is true that we prefer to use the Linkwitz-Riley alignments due to their superior phase properties, we will not be restricted by academics in our quest for excellence. From time to time we may choose to use other alignments as well -- form always follows function. Natural Law will not permit any other approach and we ARE bound by it both philosophically and practically."

I sincerely hope the above information has been informative and useful.  It is not to be interpreted as condemning or given in the spirit of "one-upmanship."  I sincerely thank every individual that has posted here concerning our product, especially Mr. Ehider.  I too struggle a bit with a tinge of cynicism from time to time.  With all of the misleading advertising and unbelievable claims being made in the loudspeaker market, it's a wonder we're not all hopeless cynics.

Take Care All,
 - Bob

[Psychicanimal]

What do you think?


jeff

I think their webmaster sucks.  So much graphics my dial-up connection cannot download it even at 3:30 AM. Not interested in looking at it.