That is something I wondered. However I have seen three-way crossovers, from KEF for example, that look rather complex - presumably to do a complex job for the particular drivers.Also saw that yesterday, and I do wonder why a small 2-way needs that many components. It would be interesting to see the raw driver responses.
Do more expensive components last longer, or drift less over time?
Not all audiophile companies sign up for a belief in magic expensive crossover components. Indeed Harbeth has been pretty vocal in the past in not believing in magic expensive audiophiles amplifiers. The LS3/5A crowd seem to believe in complicated crossovers built from normal components and this speaker seems to fit in that camp.
Of course expensive non-linear components in a passive crossover has been both a low quality and expensive way to design and manufacture speakers for several decades now. It persists because some consumers strongly value other things and I would suggest it may be wise to take account of those when assessing the appeal of speakers like the Harbeth P3. Plus of course the chap doing the pontificating is far from a reliable source of information on technical matters.
Yes, and replacing components may please the 'speaker owner - that's fine (I have another hobby where I am definitely obsessed by style as well as function).I don't think he is refering to replacing the existing with "magic expensive crossover components", only "good/better performing" ones.
Also saw that yesterday, and I do wonder why a small 2-way needs that many components. It would be interesting to see the raw driver responses.
That is something I wondered. However I have seen three-way crossovers, from KEF for example, that look rather complex - presumably to do a complex job for the particular drivers.
I am going to speculate that this review illustrates the misuse of technical over-generalization. Generalization that something is always wrong or always right, when the reality is that it depends on specific purpose and detail.
Am I missing something here in my ignorance of the details of loudspeaker crossover design? Are the generalizations actually correct?
Yes, and replacing components may please the 'speaker owner - that's fine (I have another hobby where I am definitely obsessed by style as well as function).
However, when existing components perform sufficiently well then replacing them with "better performing" ones makes no functional difference. That's why I asked earlier about whether / how much over-generalization there is in the video.
That is something I wondered. However I have seen three-way crossovers, from KEF for example, that look rather complex - presumably to do a complex job for the particular drivers.
I am going to speculate that this review illustrates the misuse of technical over-generalization. Generalization that something is always wrong or always right, when the reality is that it depends on specific purpose and detail.
Am I missing something here in my ignorance of the details of loudspeaker crossover design? Are the generalizations actually correct?
Historically, were parts tolerances tighter with BBC LS35A's relative to a P3ESR of today?