RE: Speaker builders are problematic not the xover

Follow Ups Full Thread

Topic - Since passive xovers are so problematic - LtMandella 17:44:17 02/23/20 (45)

Not passive, not just active but DSP. - Kal Rubinson 15:06:38 02/25/20 (4)

Guys, those are merely active, not DSP-based. (NT) - Kal Rubinson 08:46:21 02/26/20 (1)

RE: Guys, those are merely active, not DSP-based. (NT) - b.l.zeebub 02:50:37 02/28/20 (0)

RE: Not passive, not just active but DSP. - hahax@verizon.net 22:07:28 02/25/20 (0)

RE: Not passive, not just active but DSP. - dbphd 20:22:15 02/25/20 (0)

RE: Since passive xovers are so problematic - b.l.zeebub 08:30:00 02/25/20 (0)

RE: Since passive xovers are so problematic - fredtr 07:13:44 02/25/20 (5)

RE: Since passive xovers are so problematic - LtMandella 07:19:25 02/25/20 (4)

RE: Since passive xovers are so problematic - fredtr 07:55:32 02/25/20 (3)

RE: Since passive xovers are so problematic - LtMandella 08:01:43 02/25/20 (2)

RE: Since passive xovers are so problematic - 91derlust 14:55:42 02/29/20 (0)

RE: Since passive xovers are so problematic - fredtr 08:12:45 02/25/20 (0)

RE: Since passive xovers are so problematic - Presto 21:19:50 02/24/20 (2)

RE: Since passive xovers are so problematic - KanedaK 21:31:05 02/26/20 (0)

RE: Since passive xovers are so problematic - Hornlover 09:15:00 02/25/20 (0)

Lots of reasons why - E-Stat 14:48:39 02/24/20 (0)

Why ? - bare 08:58:54 02/24/20 (2)

Sure, but price isn't the whole story - Feanor 13:10:13 02/24/20 (1)

Me too - airtime 06:22:53 02/25/20 (0)

Many "active" speakers use active crossover - Feanor 08:21:51 02/24/20 (2)

Sadly 'Properly done' is the problem - bare 09:00:57 02/24/20 (1)

Not all are great but a good many very good indeed - Feanor 13:02:12 02/24/20 (0)

Speaker builders are problematic not the xover - airtime 06:45:56 02/24/20 (3)

Very nice and wise words - Story 01:49:40 02/25/20 (0)

Good points. Here's my (slightly different) take. - Brian H P 11:14:10 02/24/20 (0)

RE: Speaker builders are problematic not the xover - hahax@verizon.net 02/24/2007:03:31 02/24/20 (0)

RE: Since passive xovers are so problematic - Doublej 04:48:54 02/24/20 (0)

that is one reason why speakers w very simple crossovers can sound so good (eg Reference 3a) - Chuck 04:42:22 02/24/20 (3)

Been there, done that, came back - Dave_K 09:58:59 02/25/20 (0)

RE: that is one reason why speakers w very simple crossovers can sound so good (eg Reference 3a) - Ric Schultz 15:33:19 02/24/20 (0)

RE: that is one reason why speakers w very simple crossovers can sound so good (eg Reference 3a) - hahax@verizon.net 06:59:30 02/24/20 (0)

they are not Beneficial - Story 02:39:27 02/24/20 (2)

RE: they are not Beneficial - hahax@verizon.net 07:00:43 02/24/20 (1)

It must be nice to have unlimited funds, have no wisdom, and spend like a drunken sailor /nt - Story 07:47:03 02/24/20 (0)

RE: Since passive xovers are so problematic - John Elison 23:40:03 02/23/20 (0)

RE: They are? nt - B. Scarpia 21:19:12 02/23/20 (5)

+1 - Jay Buridan 06:43:06 02/26/20 (0)

RE: They are? nt - LtMandella 21:42:00 02/23/20 (3)

RE: They are? nt - LtMandella 21:44:54 02/23/20 (2)

RE: The Mighty Cambridge Audio Speakers have none? - B. Scarpia 05:04:42 02/24/20 (1)

RE: The Mighty Cambridge Audio Speakers have none? - LtMandella 12:24:26 02/24/20 (0)

RE: Since passive xovers are so problematic - hahax@verizon.net 20:47:24 02/23/20 (3)

RE: Since passive xovers are so problematic - KanedaK 01:56:14 02/24/20 (2)

RE: Since passive xovers are so problematic - hahax@verizon.net 21:29:23 02/24/20 (0)

RE: Since passive xovers are so problematic - Scholl 04:23:09 02/24/20 (0)

Follow Ups

RE: Speaker builders are problematic not the xover - hahax@verizon.net 02/24/2007:03:31 02/24/20 (0)

Post a Message!