[TomRob62]

Hi  - anthony gallo acoustics makes "round" speakers.  They also make a classico line that looks more conventional but don't use any crossovers at all.   Why is that preferable - I mean I understand, all things being equal, less parts in the design will equal less distortion but there are really really talented speaker designers and most ARE using crossovers.  If "crossoverless" was really advantageous wouldn't it be more prevalent?  Anyone with more knowledge then me (i.e. EVERYONE) care to explain in laymen's terms?

http://www.roundsound.com/classico-products/classico-cl-4-loudspeaker.html

[JLM]

There is no perfect loudspeaker.  Each type has it's advantages and disadvantages.

BTW there is a single driver circle below (with obviously biased opinions).  They would tell you that all crossovers are evil, that they rob power, that they cause phase mixups, etc.

Many believe in the point source ideal (single driver), but it is extremely hard to achieve full range response from a single driver.  Note that  20 - 20,000 Hz is only the current marketing term for "full range" (for audio purposes).  The widest range driver that I'm aware of (no longer available) are rated 30 - 20,000 Hz.  But they weren't cheap and without a whizzer cone exhibit extreme beaming starting at 4,000 Hz.  Most extended range drivers have limited bass output/cone excursions.  OTOH they offer a near-field coherence and imaging/soundstaging that is hard to beat.  Other passive options:

- Adding a whizzer cone to a larger extended range driver is just having a concentric driver with mechanical crossover
- Some (like KEF) use concentric woofer/tweeter to provide a point source that doesn't beam
- Use of MTM design to try to simulate point source (but can be very height sensitive)
- Many simply try to keep mid/woofer and tweeter as close together as possible

Perhaps the best compromise is active design with concentric or closely spaced mid/woofer and tweeter (where each driver has a directly connected channel of amplification, like a "pure" single driver).  In active design the crossover is upstream of the amps, so low voltage which allows for more precision and design sophistication (like DSP).  And the amps (usually chosen by the designer) have a simpler load to sense/react to in a more efficient manner. 

[FullRangeMan]

Hi  - anthony gallo acoustics makes "round" speakers.  They also make a classico line that looks more conventional but don't use any crossovers at all.   Why is that preferable - I mean I understand, all things being equal, less parts in the design will equal less distortion but there are really really talented speaker designers and most ARE using crossovers.  If "crossoverless" was really advantageous wouldn't it be more prevalent?  Anyone with more knowledge then me (i.e. EVERYONE) care to explain in laymen's terms?

http://www.roundsound.com/classico-products/classico-cl-4-loudspeaker.html

If you are refering to fullrange drivers they were dominant in the distant past, but then one nasty guy invented the tweeter to the speakers have more power and the rest you know what happened.

So today to make a loudspeaker with hi-end sound one have to be a genius of acoustic and electronics. The rounded Gallo speakers are great, the best enclousure are sphere shape, the second bext are the tube or bazooca, the worst are the boxes due six parallel walls.
So now you know where we are in.

[FullRangeMan]

but don't use any crossovers at all.   Why is that preferable -

JLM is right, crossovers add various probs to the music, loss of all harmonics registered in the recording, full loss of low level music signal, eat music energy to transform it in heat, phase alterations, loss of the time/amplitude alignment etc

The final result is a clean, cold, two dimensional sound, what are associated to expensive hi-fi sound. Also note in a two way speaker there is 2 xovers, 1 for the tweeter and other for the woofer. In a 3 way speaker there is 4 xovers...

[rajacat]

JLM is right, crossovers add various probs to the music, loss of all harmonics registered in the recording, full loss of low level music signal, eat music energy to transform it in heat, phase alterations, loss of the time/amplitude alignment etc

The final result is a clean, cold, two dimensional sound, what are associated to expensive hi-fi sound. Also note in a two way speaker there is 2 xovers, 1 for the tweeter and other for the woofer. In a 3 way speaker there is 4 xovers...

Funny, but my large 2 way waveguide speakers don't sound 2 dimensional to me.  They are clean to be sure but cold , no way. I think that the waveguides mitigate any single point source issues because of the wide power curve. Also they can play loud without the strain that I found in my former single driver speakers. Nice for orchestral music because they can layer the music and play at realistic volume levels.

[S Clark]

There are many excellent speakers out there... most of which have crossovers.  There are some advantages to full range speakers, and they have their fervent followers, but they also have difficulty producing low bass in volume and most, if not all,  have real issues off axis.  That said, a simple 4" full range speaker can recreate Spanish guitar that is hard to match by much larger speakers.  But full orchestra at volume? It just isn't possible. 
There are several talented crossover designers here at AC.  I would bet that a quick survey would find that members here prefer 2 way or three way speakers over single drivers by a large multiple... at least 5:1 would be my guess.  There is a reason for that.

Just went into the Member info to find an answer... it's about 10:1

[JLM]

There is another type of crossover-less speaker - one that uses multiples of the same driver.  The most famous (infamous) one is the Bose 901.  Nine drivers allowed for more volume/power handling but reportedly was done to duplicate the room reflection phenomenon.  But it took a tone control to add bass.  And it still lacked deep bass or extreme highs.

But the standard single extended range driver speaker it's true that they're best (unbeatable?) at reproducing small acoustic ensembles.  Again, there is no perfect speaker.  You choose the best tool for the intended job.  My transmission line loaded Fostex F200A (8" AlNiCo, $1800/pair with mods for the drivers alone) drivers solve most of the downfalls, but as I mentioned, beam upper midrange/treble and are no longer available.  But using them near-field mitigates most of the beaming issue and limited volume issues while actually helping by providing controlled directivity (a relatively recent theory used particularly in waveguide design). 

With conventional crossover/woofer/tweeter design the challenge of driver integration is paramount.  Trying to make a cone woofer of one material and a dome/ribbon of another material sound alike and have similar dispersion characteristics near the crossover frequency is tough.  Then you have the typical problem of sound emanating from two different points at the crossover frequency that can really mess with imaging/soundstaging, particularly if you're listening close by.

That said, one of my favorite speakers are Ascend Acoustics CBM-170's, a $300/pair small 2-way stand-mount.  Very musical, non-fatiguing, and image like champs.  I've had them for 13 years and still love them.  They don't exhibit the constipated, overly analytical, sprightly voicing that seems to be popular in modern speakers.  One set of 2-way speakers I recently heard and liked (struck me as similarly do my speakers but with less bass) were Sonus Faber Extrema, but at $70,000/pair why shouldn't they sound good??

By the way I'm not a fan of spherical speaker cabinets as the entire back wave will reflect at one set of frequencies and cancel at another set of frequencies.  Egg shapes are probably the best for simple sealed or ported designs. 

[G Georgopoulos]

The notion of dc coupled amps and crossoverless speakers still prevails with some designers i guess,caps in crossovers cause distortion and coils cause loss of detail and resolution not to mention transient response.

cheers

[S Clark]

By the way I'm not a fan of spherical speaker cabinets as the entire back wave will reflect at one set of frequencies and cancel at another set of frequencies.  Egg shapes are probably the best for simple sealed or ported designs.

If the rear of the egg was parabolic, things could be even worse that a sphere.