Interesting.
When you say you can get 100 dB (That level of a riveting machine) out of your 10W amps, it sounds like you are pushing them to their limits. I would think, since they are at their limits, you would consider that to be "loud". So what I read now is that it is about the power, not the listening level? Yet I read your post about the 1.6W amps you designed for your friend that is using ES networks throughout. You said it was so he could hear every detail. But certainly, he wouldn't be approaching anywhere near 100 dB if that is where you 10W is peaking? Do you think he has wasted his money?
I can barely stand to listen to it at 95 dB, if that is not loud to you.... well I don't want to be insulting, but gee whiz, you might want to get the hearing checked. This site refers to "very loud music" as 95dB http://www.soundinstitute.com/article_detail.cfm/ID/128. Background music is about 60dB. Yamaha, whom I would think has done the research on this, adjusts their YPAO levels to 80dB as the reference for movies. I think it is because that is a pretty common level for most. It is about the same volume as when I go to a theater. You say 110dB would be loud for you? Higher than what your amp can drive them to? That is the same as thunder. I can't imagine anyone listening to music at that level. Are you suggesting that unless people listen to music at the level of thunder, they should go with the simpler network you have chosen?
I guess I will just have to keep my opinion on this, knowing yours is different. I haven't read anything that really supports what you say other than opinion and claim of what you can hear and others may not be able to. Opinion of sound quality always reminds me of the story of the emperors new clothes. But what I do know is electronic test equipment can measure things that are undetectable by the ear, I don't care who you are. ALK does extensive testing of his networks using some pretty quality gear. His ES networks try to approach the same theoretical flatness of an active crossover using a passive design. So it sounds like what you are saying is that, similarly, an active crossover would only be better at a higher volume as well. It just doesn't make sense to me.
I don't have the scientific reasoning behind this, but to me, all these folded horn designs sound better at 70+db. Regardless of the network. I'm thinking it has something to do with using the relatively large woofer as the driver for the horn. It takes more power than the mid and tweeter to drive it. And until you give it enough (which equates to about 70dB) it doesn't have enough to really drive it with the same punch. But 70dB is about the minimum I listen at anyway.
Our ears are just different. I think sometimes people want to hear things (including me) that justify their purchases. Or inversely, justify not spending. With every upgrade, is it better? Or is it just different? What is better,... more accurate? Is better something that compensates for one's own hearing loss? Provides more artificial bass? Accurate... like the ES networks?
When you say most of us in the 70-95 range, what you are saying is 99% of the readers here. Which translates to me that you are saying that unless one is deaf (or wanting to be) and can't appreciate music anyway, the ES networks are a bad choice.
The Iron cores ALK uses sound lean and wimpy? From what I know of AL, if there was a reason to move to another inductor, he would have already done so. These are not cheap crossovers and his potential clients would certainly not quibble to pay the difference if he could justify it. Maybe these North Creek inductors do have a different sound... but are they significantly better that you can describe Al's as lean and wimpy?
I 100% disagree with your statement that he leads one to more expensive designs to make money. He makes very little on these. I priced the parts and its only ~$50 more than my building it myself. If that. He has the mounting and assembly down to a science so that $50 it is worth it for me since he also includes individual tests. From his perspective, he might make another $50 on top of what I can build them for since he orders in quantity. So all in all, it costs me $50 more than I can do it for, even if I could duplicate his work, and he might make $100 in total. That's not a huge profit for him considering the time he spends, the research he does and the quality of the product. I have spoken with him on several occasions and not once did he try to push me into buying a particular network. In fact, if anything he discouraged it. He recommended replacing the horns before anything else. And when I was certain I wanted the crossovers he still tried to deter me by letting me know he does this part time and there might be a 2 month wait to get them. Once he realized I was determined he helped me pick the best for my needs. He was very patient and answered anything I asked. We discussed this in great detail before finalizing the payment. He hasn't told me his but I believe he has his simpler universal design for those budget minded folks that just want to upgrade the 30 old year design and stay close to the original sound (good or bad). He has proof through his testing the ES designs are more accurate. That's hard to argue. Its more accurate but sounds worse? Saying he does this for the $ is almost slanderous, IMO. Just like you, and your amps, this is his passion and he does have a reputation that is highly regarded by others.
Having said that, I do want to commend you on the amps. They are truly beautiful and the knowledge you have of these shows you have a passion for it.
upgrades. I don't play my music as loud as SET.
