Anyone tried the Troels Gravesen L112 upgraded crossovers ?

[Earl K]

Hey Ian,
I get what you guys are saying. Clearly these speakers weren't made for recreating a soundstage. I think the author is probably describing better focus of the image with his adjusted crossover and that probably will have a minor tonal change. I'm just suspecting overall performance would be better with the more modern network. They are good drivers, and with modern network components would likely improve. Plus, it's a fun project. Not too expensive, and a good learning experience. Once built, the OP could experiment with different types of capacitors to voice them.


Agreed, and pertinent to Phil's question. The argument that the "ideal" speaker would be a point source in a sphere that's got flat response from 20hz-20khz and hangs rigidly in space. Though that speaker is unlikely to materialize in our lifetime, low diffraction speaker designs and dipole/bipole speakers for the home can do a good job creating the original event and still have good tonality. Again, speakers of this era just weren't designed with both in mind. No flames intended.

Rusty

I agree that the components themselves have an innate attraction for some of us perpetual tinkerers ( like myself ).

I know that if I owned these nice components ( wrapped up in a L112 label ) I would be doing something just like Troels has done.

And most of the driving impetuous would be to maximize imaging capabilities. So;

I would build new boxes that might be larger ( & try an MLTL alignment just for the fun of it ), vertically array the drivers, redesign the crossovers for less lobbing all the while trying to have all 3 drivers maintain a positive driver polarity ( unlike so many other designs ).

The flip-side; it's also my experience that as imaging gets dialed in ( ie; sharpened ) then the minute nuances heard from different passives ( capacitors, coils, even resistors ) becomes more apparent and more contributory to the overall voicing.
- As I mentioned before, pursuing "imaging" is a huge double-edged sword.

- That's why if someone has the itch ( needing to be scratched ) the Troels design is at the top of the heap ( of available mods that may well work out for them ).

[rusty jefferson]

....The flip-side; it's also my experience that as imaging gets dialed in ( ie; sharpened ) then the minute nuances heard from different passives ( capacitors, coils, even resistors ) becomes more apparent and more contributory to the overall voicing.
- As I mentioned before, pursuing "imaging" is a huge double-edged sword.

- That's why if someone has the itch ( needing to be scratched ) the Troels design is at the top of the heap ( of available mods that may well work out for them ).

Earl,
No argument there. Insert thumbs up emoji.

[BMWCCA]

Agreed, and pertinent to Phil's question. The argument that the "ideal" speaker would be a point source in a sphere that's got flat response from 20hz-20khz and hangs rigidly in space. Though that speaker is unlikely to materialize in our lifetime, low diffraction speaker designs and dipole/bipole speakers for the home can do a good job creating the original event and still have good tonality. Again, speakers of this era just weren't designed with both in mind. No flames intended.

Thanks for taking time to educate. As the owner of two ears and someone used to hearing live performances, I struggle to understand how any point-source can possibly replicate an orchestra-sized sound-stage. I get the diffraction argument with respect to component placement, but I also feel a stereo pair has a better chance of creating an appropriately sized sound-stage if they're separated properly and of large enough size. A mono system is closer to a point-source but, unless your normal seat is at the back of the house, I can't see that mono array creating much of a realistic sound-stage. Most likely that's due to my pedestrian non-engineer hi-fi experience which, interestingly, began with a mono 030 system. Once I acquired a stereo pair of the same components, I thought I'd died and gone to heaven!

Thanks for the civil conversation.

[BMWCCA]

- That's why if someone has the itch ( needing to be scratched ) the Troels design is at the top of the heap ( of available mods that may well work out for them ).

Earl, thanks for your thoughts.

The OP's question was, "Anyone tried Troels Gravesen L112 upgraded crossovers?"

It is apparent that no one here has. Not really sure why we give so much credibility to what he offers in modifications but it's all conjecture based on (IMHO) his Internet reputation. Still waiting for someone who has actually tried it in a controlled environment. I'm from Missouri: Show me!

[rdgrimes]

$0.02:
Before spending a dime or a minute on crossovers, I'd be first locking down the absolute best quality source hardware to feed those beasts.

As I type this I am listening to my L112s fed by an SACD in a Oppo BDP-105, direct analog connected to a pair of Outlaw M2200 mono blocks.
I couldn't be happier, and tearing open the crossovers is the last thing on my mind.

[BMWCCA]

$0.02:
Before spending a dime or a minute on crossovers, I'd be first locking down the absolute best quality source hardware to feed those beasts.

As I type this I am listening to my L112s fed by an SACD in a Oppo BDP-105, direct analog connected to a pair of Outlaw M2200 mono blocks.
I couldn't be happier, and tearing open the crossovers is the last thing on my mind.

Just purchased my first SACD player in anticipation of setting up my system in my new home. Problem for another thread but . . . I have no SACDs to listen to. Beyond DSOTM (which I'm so over), any suggestions to stun my ears with in a new medium?

[grumpy]

I’d look for familar recordings of acoustic instruments and voices, less compression will show off dynamics.
May not float your boat but the sacd reissue of Getz/Gilberto was a hoot.

[Ian Mackenzie]

Perhaps we need a more historical perspective to appreciate loudspeakers then and now.

The other way of looking at this is to look back at what a buyer was interested in?

If you were into rock music then it was about finding a pair of loudspeaker within your budget that sounded the best on rock music. The dream was a big loudspeaker but large format monitors were beyond most budgets. But they sounded great on a demo in the shop. Ie the L200 or L300. They went louder, lower and had a bigger sound.

If you could not do that then it was a bookshelf loudspeaker.

Overall there was either west coast or east coast sound.

Being a rock music listener you weren’t interested in the east coast loudspeakers.

So it was about what you could afford in the west coast sound.

Jbl were basically the “kings” of loudspeakers in this area because they had the best drivers. They were cleaner and went louder than the less expensive competitors offerings. Above all they had better bass.

You either had a budget for a 10 inch Jbl system or a 12 inch system.

Today it’s s completely different market.

What people listen for and decor (size) are big influences. Bookshelf loudspeakers if anything are smaller and larger bookshelf systems have evolved into slender floor standing tower systems with multiple vertically aligned 6-7 1/2 inch woofers. These are much narrower enclosures than the Jbl bookshelf systems of the 70’s and 80’s. Loudspeaker designers know narrow baffles have better imaging properties in the midrange and treble so this becomes a design focus. However narrow baffles have a downside and the bass is weaker due loss of sensitivity at lower frequencies. This This is why these systems use multiple woofers.

Getting all these drivers to work together nicely require a more sophisticated approach to crossover design. So a loudspeaker designers first reaction to the Jbl 12 inch systems is going to be a desire to introduce more control in the crossover network.

The above isn’t a complete analysis but more a snapshot view of the two different eras as far as consumer loudspeakers are concerned.

[BMWCCA]

I’d look for familar recordings of acoustic instruments and voices, less compression will show off dynamics.
May not float your boat but the sacd reissue of Getz/Gilberto was a hoot.

Thanks. I have the re-mastered CD version already so that would be a good comparison.

[rusty jefferson]

Ian,
Well said. In the home audio heyday we listened to music, and now there is more emphasis on experiencing music. I'm guilty of this myself.

There are other reasons besides imaging for the smaller woofers and narrow baffles though, including lower distortion, less beaming and of course less cost. It is largely unheard of today to cross over a 12" woofer at 1.5khz in home speakers because of beaming and potentially, distortion. 200-300hz would be the highest you can expect to see now in home speakers with a 12" woofer (and moving toward the built in subwoofer). The reduced beaming of woofers and mid woofers does also greatly improve imaging.

[Robh3606]

Since we seem to be talking about imaging and how JBL seemed to be blind to it. It wouldn't hurt to take a look at what JBL actually says in their marketing brochure for this particular model.

http://www.lansingheritage.org/html/.../1980-l112.htm


Rob

[Earl K]

Seems like Boiler Plate and Bafflegab designed to support/leverage the in-arguable success of the 4310/1 monitors from the 1970's.

ie; If a record is tracked, mixed and maybe even mastered on speakers ( with similar components arranged in a similar manner ) then it really should play back properly on speakers cut from the same cloth.

It's my experience that recordings from this 1970-1980's era ( once one has ascertained to a high degree of probability that they were mixed on 4310/1's) have mixes that will literally fall apart when played back on speakers with more traditionally accepted inline ( or point-source ) componentry .

This becomes the un-stated dilemma / danger in trying to "fix" these older speakers ( while striving to keep the original musical presentation ).

IOW, there's a real good chance that a lot of one's favourite Classic Rock tunes will become absolutely " > un-recognizable < ??? " if the speaker rethink goes completely modern.

[rdgrimes]

Just purchased my first SACD player in anticipation of setting up my system in my new home. Problem for another thread but . . . I have no SACDs to listen to. Beyond DSOTM (which I'm so over), any suggestions to stun my ears with in a new medium?

Acoustic Sounds is a good source for discs and downloads. Buy what you want to listen to and be aware that re-issues of old analog masters can have mixed results. Ray Brown: Soular Energy and Muddy Waters Folk Singer are 2 of my go-to high res sources for demo.

[SEAWOLF97]

The reduced beaming of woofers and mid woofers does also greatly improve imaging.

lots of talk here about imaging. I've a a few speakers in my days () , and the best imaging ones
have usually been small 2 way 8 inchers (usually British). Not sure why

[Chas]

Just purchased my first SACD player in anticipation of setting up my system in my new home. Problem for another thread but . . . I have no SACDs to listen to. Beyond DSOTM (which I'm so over), any suggestions to stun my ears with in a new medium?

Phil, if you like Dylan, Blonde on Blonde on SACD is quite remarkable. Enjoy your new set up!