Those were the wonderful (?) days of passive loudspeakers .I get what you're saying, but its 1960's Linton 2 ancestor which was tweaked slightly over the bare front original, was a two way.
Having said that, when I started out all wet behind the ears, this to me hideous thing had replaced it - midrange 'squawker' equipped - things had started to move on quickly by this time (MA7, IMF original Compact and KEF Chorale are three that come to mind)
What have they to do with it? - Was PC's brief to do a *three way* I wonder, or did the design just turn out that way. I ask this as the budget may have been broadly flexible - and Chinese manufacture seems to save hundreds of dollars at this price point over say, UK manufacture. The crossover in Danny's hands has ONE electrolytic cap (which is large an dmodern enough and should last a few decades reasonably in spec I reckon, the rest being film types unless I'm mistaken which shouldn't drift off. Forget all the other crap about coils and the ubiquitous tube connectors if he suggests them (I refuse to play the video now, sorry).
The biggest issue for me, and have been many years since starting building and measuring DIY loudspeakers, is the fact that most passive ( and a couple of active ) loudspeakers are not matched in crossover components and driver tolerances with +-1 dB accuracy.
If one massproduced passive loudspeaker measures really well , how do you know the other speaker in a stereo setup is as well behaved ? It might differ more than 3-4 dB in certain frequency areas.
Just a thought .
Last edited: