Frequency Band Splitters Shootout

[Ostermilk]

Does crossover get used in most studio settings in your experience? Pretty much everyone I know is from a MIDI + synths background so most of us have never had the need to go to an actual recording studio.

A crossover is a crossover, whether it's in a pro or home studio (or whether it's called a band splitter or a crossover!).
Like I said previously, it may be the term band splitter came from Adobe, since it's only recently become popular (someone correct me if I'm wrong on this). I can't find a use of the term "band splitter" on any product before Adobe introduced it in 2006 (again, someone please correct me if I'm wrong here!). Audition, fwiw, was considered a home studio and later broadcast application, so it may have been more free to use it's own terminology rather than stick to industry standards. Again, I'm not loosing any sleep over this, it's just a curiosity IMO.

An excerpt from a book from 2002 here uses the term. Again though it's from 'Cool Edit Pro' which of course later became Adobe's Audition.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=lHk ... er&f=false

However well previous to that you'll find the term 'band splitter' is defined in the Telecommunications field as a multplexer that divides an available frequency into a number of smaller independent channels either using time division or as in this case frequency division.

Another distinction may arise between a 'band splitter' and a 'crossover' as applied to a speaker system maybe in the idea that a band splitter used in audio production may have a preferred characteristic of producing a perfect reconstruction of the original signal (hence the LR filters) when recombined whereas a crossover found in a speaker system may deliberately be designed to be assymetric in order to compensate other components in the loudspeaker system to achieve the perfect balance within that system, hence a crossover and not necessarily a straight frequency band split.

[selig]

Band splitter is just another name for crossover. I'm not familiar with speaker crossover networks intentionally asymmetrical (got a reference?), while there are plenty of band splitters that aren't.

[Ostermilk]

Band splitter is just another name for crossover. I'm not familiar with speaker crossover networks intentionally asymmetrical (got a reference?), while there are plenty of band splitters that aren't.

This one was easy to find.

On the other hand, if the audio crossover separates the audio bands in a loudspeaker, there is no requirement for mathematically ideal characteristics within the crossover itself, as the frequency and phase response of the loudspeaker drivers within their mountings will eclipse the results. Satisfactory output of the complete system comprising the audio crossover and the loudspeaker drivers in their enclosure(s) is the design goal. Such a goal is often achieved using non-ideal, asymmetric crossover filter characteristics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_crossover

So yes we know there are band splitters that are not symmetrical and speaker crossovers that are but I'm just putting forward the idea that it's desirable for a 'band splitter' used for audio production to exhibit this transperency whereas for a loudspeaker system it ought to be tailored specifically to it's application.

I also agree the terminology is interchangeable aside from the semantics I indicated that could give rise to a distinction, but you were stating that it was likely that Adobe coined the Band Splitter tag as late as 2006 and you explicitly asked for someone to correct you if you were wrong on that. Clearly the term predates Cool Edit Pro or Audition and has certainly been in used in signal processing related to telecommunications well before Adobe (or rather Syntrillium Software) adopted it. Indeed it's very plausible that our ol' pal and telecommunications engineer Harry Nyquist may have been using the term 'frequency band splitter' back when steam locomotives were the norm.

HTH

[selig]

My point was that it was Adobe (rather than an audio based company) that coined the phrase for audio, and you have confirmed that. My only question was when, and you answered that!

Great find on the speaker crossover question btw.

[Ostermilk]

My point was that it was Adobe (rather than an audio based company) that coined the phrase for audio, and you have confirmed that. My only question was when, and you answered that!

Great find on the speaker crossover question btw.

Coined the phrase for Audio?

Audio has been using general terms related to the wider subject of signal processing since before the gramophone, no?

[selig]

My point was that it was Adobe (rather than an audio based company) that coined the phrase for audio, and you have confirmed that. My only question was when, and you answered that!

Great find on the speaker crossover question btw.

Coined the phrase for Audio?

Audio has been using general terms related to the wider subject of signal processing since before the gramophone, no?

I don't follow - would it be better if I said Adobe was the first to use the term "splitter" for a device employing audio crossovers?

[normen]

Agree with Selig fwiw. No audio engineer would give you a crossover if you asked for a splitter. They'd give you a y-cable or a splitter mic preamp.

[dioxide]

Agree with Selig fwiw. No audio engineer would give you a crossover if you asked for a splitter. They'd give you a y-cable or a splitter mic preamp.

So what about if you asked them for a 'band splitter' or a 'frequency splitter'?

[dioxide]

My point was that it was Adobe (rather than an audio based company) that coined the phrase for audio, and you have confirmed that. My only question was when, and you answered that!

A minor detail but CoolEdit Pro was by Syntrillium Software and it was later bought by Adobe and rebadged as Audition. CEP got to at least v2.1 before being bought out.

Adobe purchased Cool Edit Pro from Syntrillium Software in May 2003 for $16.5 million

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Audition

I mention this as it's not true to say it was a term coined by a company that weren't specialists in audio. CoolEdit was around since 1995 (or earlier?).
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/1997_ar ... ledit.html

[Ostermilk]

My point was that it was Adobe (rather than an audio based company) that coined the phrase for audio, and you have confirmed that. My only question was when, and you answered that!

Great find on the speaker crossover question btw.

Coined the phrase for Audio?

Audio has been using general terms related to the wider subject of signal processing since before the gramophone, no?

I don't follow - would it be better if I said Adobe was the first to use the term "splitter" for a device employing audio crossovers?

No it would have been better had you let dioxide get on with the Band Splitter Shootout as we all knew what he meant until you draged the thread into some word-centric pedantry, when you specifically asked for clarification which I gave when I said in signal processing a band splitter is a multiplexer for dividing a signal either in the time domain [TDM] or in this instance it was already clear that we were dealing with the frequency domain [FDM]

According to you the term Band Splitter came about from you assertions below whereas the term has existed for a much longer time as I've pointed out several times already.

They could also be called band dividers, or band separaters since that's what they do: divide or separate an audio signal into separate bands. The issue remains that they ARE crossovers, that are being called "splitters" by some developers (as a way of simplifying the idea to newbs maybe?). To put it another way, Adobe created a process using crossovers that they called a "Band Splitter" for whatever reasons. Bottom line: there is no way to "split" or "divide" (or "isolate", a DJ version of a crossover) the signal into bands other than to use a crossover, full stop.

You created the confusion and derailment of what otherwise may have been a good comparison thread fo these devices here when you knew full well what the thread was referring to and then state you are being confused by others. Adobe did NOT create the term nor was it created for 'newbs'. Crossover or frequency band splitter who cares... but you certainly seemed to.

Is that clear enough!? Perhaps you need to read what you write as carefully as I did...

[normen]

So what about if you asked them for a 'band splitter' or a 'frequency splitter'?

Same as selig said, thats synonymous with crossover. I guess thats also why you changed the title to be more precise? I was in the same position as Selig, when I first read the thread title I thought "BS, a digital splitter doesn't do anything to the sound".

I don't think Selig derailed anything here, he's correct in saying a "splitter" is not a band splitter or crossover and thats all he said.

Anyway, I definitely do appreciate your work here.

[dioxide]

Splex is another RE band splitter (or variable 3-way crosoover if you prefer... ) as well since you can bypass it's compressor stages.

Just thought I'd mention it.

Thanks. I've downloaded it and I'm going to add it to the comparison now (while my demos are still working!).

[dioxide]

So what about if you asked them for a 'band splitter' or a 'frequency splitter'?

Same as selig said, thats synonymous with crossover.

That's what I thought, the terms are interchangeable.

So are we all happy with the term 'crossover', 'band splitter' or a 'frequency splitter' as they're all the same damn thing? I know you all knew what I meant anyway

[normen]

That's what I thought, the terms are interchangeable.

So are we all happy with the term 'crossover', 'band splitter' or a 'frequency splitter' as they're all the same damn thing? I know you all knew what I meant anyway

I knew when I read the thread, I didn't when I read the (original) title.

[Ostermilk]

So what about if you asked them for a 'band splitter' or a 'frequency splitter'?

Same as selig said, thats synonymous with crossover.

That's what I thought, the terms are interchangeable.

So are we all happy with the term 'crossover', 'band splitter' or a 'frequency splitter' as they're all the same damn thing? I know you all knew what I meant anyway

Exactamundo!!!

[dioxide]

I guess thats also why you changed the title to be more precise? I was in the same position as Selig, when I first read the thread title I thought "BS, a digital splitter doesn't do anything to the sound".

Yes that's why I changed the thread title from Splitter Shootout to Band Splitter Shootout. As I agree it would have caused confusion as it wasn't specific enough. To me a band splitter is a type of splitter so 'splitter' is too general.

I don't think Selig derailed anything here, he's correct in saying a "splitter" is not a band splitter or crossover and thats all he said.

He did go on to say more than just that. What derailed the thread was his annoyance at the terms 'band splitter' or 'frequency splitter' insisting that it can only be called a crossover and the term must have been coined by people who have no expertise in the field and asking other people to prove his theory without providing any evidence that it was an Adobe term.

Anyway I think we've resolved this and we can get back to the point now. Have we?

[Ostermilk]

Agree with Selig fwiw. No audio engineer would give you a crossover if you asked for a splitter. They'd give you a y-cable or a splitter mic preamp.

Or a thru-cable with reversed pins at one end...

I think what you are referring to as a crossover here is actually a frequency division multiplexer....

[normen]

Or a thru-cable with reversed pins at one end...

I think what you are referring to as a crossover here is actually a frequency division multiplexer....

You know the children story where the two kids replace all kinds of words with others? At some point they can't communicate with anyone else but each other. Call a crossover "Winnie the Pooh" if you want but don't be startled if somebody tells you thats normally referring to a comic bear.

[dioxide]

I knew when I read the thread, I didn't when I read the (original) title.

I changed the thread title after Selig's first post, so that title was live for maybe 30 minutes, maybe less. So it might have confused a few folks but everyone else is wondering what the fuss is about.

In the meantime the graphic has been viewed a lot, which is good, but the test file has only been downloaded once. If anyone wants to make any kind of contribution to the thread other than arguing about the terms used then please do.

Screen Shot 2016-01-09 at 18.07.17.png (21.2 KiB) Viewed 1796 times

Seeing as some of the people here are studio guys, you could contribute some valuable information regarding possible phase issues maybe?

[dioxide]

You know the children story where the two kids replace all kinds of words with others? At some point they can't communicate with anyone else but each other. Call a crossover "Winnie the Pooh" if you want but don't be startled if somebody tells you thats normally referring to a comic bear.

Terms gain currency when people have a shared understanding of what the terms mean. A simple Google search will show that Frequency Splitter and Band Splitter are both terms that people both use and understand. So there's no need to insist that everyone calls it a Crossover.

[normen]

Terms gain currency when people have a shared understanding of what the terms mean. A simple Google search will show that Frequency Splitter and Band Splitter are both terms that people both use and understand. So there's no need to insist that everyone calls it a Crossover.

Nobody insisted on that. What was said is that the technically correct term is "crossover", which was what people got mad about - presumably because they read into that that somebody was insisting on the correct term.

[Ostermilk]

Terms gain currency when people have a shared understanding of what the terms mean. A simple Google search will show that Frequency Splitter and Band Splitter are both terms that people both use and understand. So there's no need to insist that everyone calls it a Crossover.

Nobody insisted on that. What was said is that the technically correct term is "crossover", which was what people got mad about - presumably because they read into that that somebody was insisting on the correct term.

Wrong!

Somebody asserted that Adobe may have been the first to use the term 'Band Splitter' for a crossover device if you read back nobody had issue with the term crossover.

You are clearly making pooh bear out of something you haven't yet read clearly. My responses were indeed all response to innaccuracies put forward I quoted those inaccuracies along with my responses which were intended to clarify issues raised by Selig himself who also request certain clarifications which I also gave he then seemed to get lost in his own blither none of which was necessary in the context of this thread.

If I didn't know better I could infer from your most recent contributions that you were taking sides rather than taking note of what was actually said.

Actually by now I'd rather see a new thread appear on the same subject as this one got so badly diverted with pedantry it lost its focus even before I joined in.

Hey Norm check this it came before I mentioned anything!

Anyway, I apologize for the detour and thank you for indulging mean this discussion!

[dioxide]

I've updated the original post to include the Splex Crossover (there I said it) Compressor. I've also moved the info about the crossover filter types and the links to the manuals to the first post for anyone who might have missed it in the ensuing shitstorm (please feel free to substitute your own favourite phrase here).

[Ostermilk]

I've updated the original post to include the Splex Crossover (there I said it) Compressor. I've also moved the info about the crossover filter types and the links to the manuals to the first post for anyone who might have missed it in the ensuing shitstorm (please feel free to substitute your own favourite phrase here).

Nerdy fest...Navel gaze...Fart skinning session... there's plenty of substitute terms for some things...

[normen]

Wrong!

What? The simple fact that he stated this led to the discussion which in turn led to the speculations about adobe which in turn led to end- and pointless back and forth. Only thing I did is assert that in the professional audio world a "splitter" is not a crossover and that the use of the term for that confused me as well.