Romy the Cat wrote:

It was a conversation a few days back at one of UK forum:  http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=113989#113989 The unfortunates from the forum did not get the message. They with their Chinese digital crossovers, rock-n-roll brains, PA playbacks, necessity to kiss each other in ass and fear of own incompliance with genuineness too short-minded to get message but I thought the message is worth to me pinched again. So, in my reply later I suggested: “think why I did not say that 4th order crossover did not work but instead I insisted that use of 4th order crossover indicate barbaric design techniques (most of times)”. I think it will be a good mental exercise for other to think about the answer to this question. Rgs,  Romy the Cat

tuga wrote:

Romy, On the subject of speaker design, I don't think you'll disagree if I say that your "quest for a better monitor" was unsuccessful. You mentionaed at the time that the speakers should respect the following: 1) Perform correct in context of first order filter , 2) Have correct tonal performance, 3) Do not require any frequency or impedance normalization, 4) Have low dynamic compression What did you learn from the process and would have done differently? Couldn't some of your requirements have been an obstacle to a more viable solution, possibly achieved by accepting a few compromises? Do you feel that the design/conception of direct radiation speakers with box enclosures should obey to the same rules and requirements as horn speakers?