Series vs.

Parallel Crossover Networks

Introduction
Despite many of the myths that surround series networks and their acclaimed superiority
over conventional parallel networks for loudspeaker design, both networks can be designed
with identical transfer functions if the load impedance remains constant. Most of the
claims regarding series networks are either grossly overstated or blatantly wrong and may
cause deleterious e ff e c t s o n s y s t e m p e r f o r m a n c e . As with a l l a s p e c t s o f
d e s i g n , t h e r e a r e compromises that must be made, and it is impossible to make an
informed decision if unaware of the facts.
There are no greatly enhanced features in a series or parallel network - if properly
designed their performance is essentially identical in terms of response, phase and (by
extension) transient response. It is unwise to claim that one type of network is superior to
the other, when simple logic dictates that if amplitude and phase response are the same,
then all of the filter's other characteristics are also the same.
There are other factors than just the response, and this is where the differences between
the network topologies exist. Each has good and bad points that must be considered.
First Order Comparison
First order (6dB/octave) networks have a strong following amongst many audiophiles, and
indeed, they have a number of very desirable features. They have the best possible
transient response, and are predictable and easy to design, but as with all things there is
a down side.
The demands on the drivers are extreme, with significant power delivered to the tweeter
even at its resonant frequency, and the risk of cone breakup and off-axis lobbing for the
mid-woofer.
Nevertheless, at low power, inter-modulation products can be kept within reasonable
limits with careful driver selection, and they can sound very good indeed.

Series and Parallel 1st Order Filters

Illustrated above are equivalent series and parallel first order crossovers with 1 kHz
crossover points for a fixed load. Note that resistive loads were used in order to minimize
analysis variables. 1 kHz was chosen for one reason - the crossover frequency is nicely

centered in the graphs for best display.

Input impedance is exactly the same for each type, and is essentially perfectly flat, with
both circuits dropping by 2 milliohms at the crossover frequency. This is of no consequence,
and may be ignored.

Response
The frequency response and electrically summed outputs are shown in Figure 1.2 and it is
quite obvious that they are identical; since the graphs are perfectly overplayed (there are 6
graphs on the chart, not 3).

Phase Response
The phase response of the series and parallel crossovers are also identical as can be seen
above. There are 4 graphs (2 serial and 2 parallel) and again, they are perfectly aligned.
Impedance Variations
Figure 1.4 shows the variation of high and low pass filters and summed response when the
woofer impedance is varied by +/-2 ohms. Red shows the electrical sum of the variation with
6 impedance, and the green graph is for 10. Note that only the low pass filter response is
affected.

Parallel, Variable Woofer Impedance

The results for tweeter impedance variations are similar (and affect only the tweeter section
of the filter), but have not been shown, since the tweeter is far less likely to undergo any
noticeable change than the woofer.
The graphs below show the woofer impedance was changed from 6 to 10 as was done
with the parallel network. Note that although the crossover frequency moves (it becomes
higher at higher woofer impedances and vice versa); the summed response remains
completely flat.

Series, Variable Woofer Impedance

The two sections have a complementary shift - when woofer impedance changes, it
effects both low and high pass sections, and changes the Q of the filter sections. The
result is quite obvious - unlike a parallel crossover, the response remains flat
regardless of a shift in the woofer (or tweeter) impedance. If both change in any
direction, the same thing happens. In theory, this means that the series network is almost
immune from impedance variations in the drivers.

Series, 20Woofer, 3 Tweeter

By changing the driver impedances, two things happen. The filter Q changes and the
reflected change affect the behavior of the other filter section. Although the individual
response, Q and phase varies, the net result is that the effective crossover frequency is
changed, but nothing more. This is a remarkable property, and the series first order is the

only crossover filter circuit that has this ability.

Remarkable though it may be it is still advisable to design the series network correctly,
and maintain everything as close as possible to the design values. Should the woofer
impedance increase (with voice coil t e m p e r a t u r e , for example), the crossover frequency
will move upwards, thus providing a small measure of added protection for the tweeter at
sustained high power levels.
However, all is not completely rosy. Everything in electronics is a compromise, and the
selection of a crossover is no different. There is one final test that needs to be applied,
and that is to examine the amount of woofer back EMF that reaches the tweeter. This is an
area where the series network is inferior to the parallel.

Series, Woofer Back EMF Attenuation

With a parallel network, only the amplifier's output impedance plus the impedance of the
cable allows any cross coupling between high and low pass sections. With a zero ohm
source, attenuation is infinite, and is not shown above.
A series network relies solely on the isolation of the crossover filters, and as a result, the
back EMF from the woofer is not attenuated as well. This may not be a major problem,
since the attenuation of back EMF is the same as for amplifier power (actually, it is 3dB
better), and the latter is at a far greater amplitude. It is a consideration nevertheless, so
be aware that it may increase tweeter inter-modulation.
Summary
The series network is probably a better choice than parallel for a number of reasons. It
retains a flat response even when the driver characteristics change, and is to an extent
"self-correcting". Implementation is no more difficult than for an equivalent parallel
network, and the same component values are used.
On the negative side, woofer back EMF suppression is significantly worse than with a
parallel network - it is up to the designer to determine if this is likely to cause a problem.
Finally, it must be remembered that any first order network dictates that the drivers will
have significant power applied at frequencies where their performance will be rapidly
deteriorating, however for a system that will never be operated at high power; the
performance can be very satisfying.
Second Order Comparison

The design process for a 12dB/octave filter is completely different for series and
parallel implementations of the same design. For a parallel network (assuming a
Butterworth alignment), the capacitance and inductance are calculated by
C = 1 / (2 * * f * (Z * 2)) L = (Z * 2) / (2 * * f)
(Where Z is impedance, f is frequency, 2 is 1.414, and is 3.14159)
A series crossover design is different in terms of the component values
C = 1 / (2 * * f * (Z / 2)) L = (Z / 2) / (2 * * f)
For this exercise, the crossover frequency was arbitrarily selected to be 1 kHz, and 8 ohm
resistive loads were used. The series network has the advantage of using smaller
inductance values, but capacitor values are higher. The difference is unimportant, but
capacitors for crossovers are more expensive than inductors. This is a minor point if there
is an improvement in performance.
The values used for the simulations were as follows
Parallel
Crossover

Common Values

Series
Crossover

Crossover
Frequency

1kHz C = 14.07uF

C = 28.13 uF

Speaker
Impedance

L = 900 uH

L = 1.8 mH

Second Order Crossover Value

Series and Parallel 2nd Order Filters

Response
As with the previous example using a first order filter, when properly aligned, the response is
identical. Because the plots look exactly the same as the previous example (other than the
roll off slope), there is little point displaying graphs that show two sets of curves that are
perfectly matched.
It can be stated that if two filters, regardless of topology (series, parallel, active or passive)
have an identical frequency response, then they must also have identical phase and impulse

responses, since these cannot be separated.

Of course, this only holds true as long as the source and load impedances are also identical.
Input impedance of both filters is essentially completely flat, having a variation of only 4.6
mdB (i.e. 0.0046 dB). Due to rounding errors in the component values, there is a tiny
variance between the two filters; however it is completely insignificant (about 0.17 Hz
difference).
One thing that should not be overlooked is the inductor's resistance. While this causes a
small loss of level with a parallel crossover network **, it will cause the series network to
"shelve" the tweeter roll off. As a result, a DC resistance of (say) 800m will cause the signal
applied to an 8 tweeter to drop to a minimum of just over 20dB below the applied signal
regardless of frequency! This includes DC under amplifier fault conditions.
There is virtually no difference between series and parallel at about 1 decade below
crossover (i.e. 1/10th the frequency), but below that the difference becomes apparent.
There may be as much as 20dB more level applied to the tweeter at 20Hz with a
series crossover vs an otherwise identical parallel version (with an inductor DCR of 0.8)
** Although there is a small loss of level, the parallel crossover's theoretical response is
greatly disturbed by even a 0.8 DCR in the inductor. This will cause a response anomaly of
about 1dB, with the woofer output being 0.8dB down at one decade below crossover
frequency. Naturally, higher resistance will create more deviation in response. The series
network's overall response remains flat. Normally, the inductor's DCR must be factored into
the design, regardless of crossover type.
Impedance Variations
As was shown to be the case with the first order implementation, by its very nature, the
two segments of a parallel crossover are separate, and share only the amplifiers output
impedance, plus the impedance (R, L and C) of the speaker lead. Speaker lead
capacitance may safely be ignored as it is insignificant compared to the capacitances
within the crossover network.
A series network on the other hand, relies on the integrity of the series elements - all of
them. A change in woofer parameters (for example) therefore affects the tweeter, and vice
versa. The tweeter is likely to have smaller and fewer changes than the woofer in a
practical system.
It is interesting to see the behavior of the two network types when the outputs are summed
electrically. This is a severe test, and in 12dB types, neither crossover is significantly worse
than the other in this respect.
Any change in the parameters of the woofer (the most likely to change) causes a change in
the tweeter parameters, and the summed electrical response varies with both types.
Since it has been established that the two filter types are identical when all values are
at their design figures, there is no point showing this. The following two charts show the
extremes - with the woofer impedance at 4 ohms and 12 ohms (the latter value being much
more likely).

Series and Parallel - Woofer at 4

The red trace is the summed electrical response of the parallel network, and green for
series. The dark green and violet traces (with the kinks and bends) are the individual
responses for the series network.
Note that although both series and parallel networks have deviated from the ideal, the
parallel network has a flatter and less rapid change. Overall, the difference is marginal.

Series and Parallel - Woofer at 12

Here, the change when the woofer impedance is increased to 12 ohms. The series network
is slightly better, but there is very little between the two. The rise at crossover frequency
has changed from 3dB (normal) to 4.9dB - this will be audible in both cases.
The impedance "seen" by the drivers is also important. This may be referred to as "lookback impedance". The woofer is expected to be effectively short-circuited by the
amplifier at low frequencies, and both networks achieve this quite well. Interestingly, the
parallel network loses control at the crossover frequency. This is shown in the following
diagram. The loss of control at this frequency is relatively unimportant if the cabinet is well
damped, but may cause coloration with some systems.
In the following graph, each trace indicates the current generated when a 1V
source is connected in series with the woofer. This represents the back EMF generated
by the cones momentum when the signal changes. The red trace shows the current in the
parallel network, and as can be seen, it drops to a low value (high impedance) at the
crossover frequency. A series network maintains relatively good control over this region,
tapering off (impedance increasing) gradually.

Series and Parallel - Woofer Back EMF Current

The next test is to see how well each network maintains separation of the signal generated
by the woofer. It is important that woofer back EMF (in particular) is not seen by the
tweeter, as this may create inter-modulation. The 2nd order network is the same as a 1st
order network in this respect, except that the slope is 12dB/octave as is expected of a
second order network.

Series, Woofer Back EMF Rejection

The amount of this signal reaching the tweeter should be zero (or close to it). The parallel
network is not shown, since it is at zero. Not so good for the series network however,
with more than half the generator voltage appearing at the tweeter terminals at the
crossover frequency. Even at 300 Hz, the voltage is significant at 100 mV (20dB down
from the full 1V applied). As with the series 1st order network, the back EMF rejection is
3dB better than the attenuation of the amplifier signal below crossover frequency.
The levels shown are not a real concern, since woofer back EMF will always be much lower
than the amplifier signal. While it would seem ideal to limit such cross-coupling to the
minimum possible, the effects are something of an unknown and back EMF can be
expected to be quite low with typical drivers - especially where the box is well damped
internally.
Given that valve amplifiers typically have an output impedance of 6 ohms (when operated
without global feedback), the differences between the series and parallel
configurations become very similar, with the parallel network being only 2.7dB better than
its series counterpart.

Summary
The differences between second order series and parallel filters are more difficult to
rationalize. Each has strengths and weaknesses, but from the above, the parallel version
probably has a slight advantage. Both exhibit variations in response when the woofer (or
tweeter) characteristics change, and they are quite similar. The parallel filter has better
woofer back EMF rejection in the tweeter circuit, while the series crossover has a better
woofer "look back" impedance characteristic.
Components for a series crossover will be more costly because of higher capacitor values,
but it will have lower losses due to inductor resistance, since they are lower values. For
those who feel that capacitors change the sound, the higher values may be thought to
have a greater effect
Conclusion
It is very difficult to make any judgment of series or parallel crossovers as a generalization.
The series first order network is probably a better choice in general, due to its flat
response regardless of driver impedance - this can simplify the design, but at the expense
of having the crossover frequency shift from the design value.
The choice is more difficult for the second order crossover, since both series and parallel
have vices and virtues, with neither standing out as generally superior. Overall, the parallel
version is probably a better choice, if only because it is slightly more tolerant of variations,
and will probably have marginally lower losses because there is no series connection of the
drivers (this adds the resistive losses in the inductors, whereas they are in parallel in the
parallel filter - of course).
As for any claims for better transient response or sound quality, this is very doubtful there is nothing to suggest that either version if properly designed will outperform the
other to any degree. Parallel crossovers are easier to design, and are simple to convert to a
(sub) Bessel response with a Q of 0.5 (approximating a Linkwitz-Riley response).
Most constructors who have attempted second order series crossovers have had to spend
considerable time tweaking to get it right - they are harder to design than their parallel
counterpart, and interactions will always cause problems.
Experiment
As a final examination, Figure 3.1 shows a series and parallel network, using simulated
drivers. There is no compensation applied for woofer inductance or tweeter resonance, yet
both effects are present.

Figure 3.1 - Series & Parallel, With Simulated Drivers

The grey boxes are the drivers (identical in each version), and the area outside the boxes
contains the generator and filter networks. These are the same in each case, with the
values deviating from the previous simulations only in that this design is for a real
crossover network. The values are slightly different from those shown, but the principle is
identical!
A transient analysis shows the following outputs, using a nominal 4 kHz crossover
frequency (as per the circuits above) and an input signal of 1 kHz...

Transient Response, 1 KHz Square wave Signal

The parallel crossover output is shown in Aqua, and the Violet trace is the series network's
output. This is an electrical summing, but it shows clearly that the driver characteristics are
fully compensated by the series network, and the output is exactly the same as the
input. The parallel network by comparison indicates severe waveform distortion, and this
implies phase and levels are incorrect - remember that no attempt was made to
optimize the driver impedance with Zobel or notch filters in either case.
This is fine in theory, so to prove the point one way or another, the following are
real impedance and response plots from two identical boxes, measured under identical
conditions, and within a few minutes of each other.

Impedance Comparison, Series vs. Parallel

The

measured

impedance differences

are

as

likely

to

be

the

result of

slightly

mismatched drivers as anything else. There is not a great difference at all. The red trace is
the series connection, and black is parallel.

Frequency Response Comparison, Series vs. Parallel

Response differences are a bit more pronounced (again, red is series and black is
parallel), but are not as should expect based on the simulations. Simulation showed
perfectly flat response, but remembers that was an electrical signal only, and fails to
account for driver behavior. Note that there is a noticeable improvement at the crossover
frequency of 4 kHz - the series network is flatter, indicating that the theory does work (the
drivers have no impedance compensation).
Finally, after converting the second enclosure's crossover to series, did another response
comparison, there are still differences between boxes, with one tweeter being more
efficient than the other. This alone would account for some of the differences seen in the
series-parallel comparison.

Frequency Response Comparison, Series vs. Parallel

The glitch at 7 kHz appears to be caused by diffraction, probably from the woofer's
surround (which projects slightly from the frame, and is at the correct distance for that
frequency). As for sound differences between the series and parallel connections, there was
very little that could hear. The microphone is much more sensitive to small variations
than the ear, and there are quite dramatic variations in response as one move around far greater than the differences measured between the series and parallel connections.
This shows up readily if one moves the measurement mic even a small distance, and the
fact that the two sets of response graphs look quite different is evidence of this. The mic

was moved about 50mm further away from the speakers for the second chart.
Spectral decay plots were also done, but are not shown - there are marginal differences as
one would expect from the frequency response variations, but little else.
Although a simulation shows that a first order series crossover is superior to its parallel
equivalent, the fact is that the differences are slight. The evidence was sufficiently
compelling for to change the crossovers, but the huge difference in sound quality one
might expect was not forthcoming. More revealing drivers may well sound better to a
critical listener, but the differences are hardly "chalk and cheese" as some may imply.
Series & Parallel Networks are (Virtually) identical...
Despite the differences that have been shown, the loudspeaker drivers should always be
carefully equalized with Zobel networks to achieve flat impedance. Once the impedance is
flat, it is resistive, and as has been shown above, the two networks are virtually identical
with resistive loads. Therefore, it follows that properly executed Zobel (and a notch filter
for the tweeter resonance) will cause real-world series and parallel crossover networks to
behave in an identical manner, with the (relatively) small difference of woofer back EMF
applied to the tweeter.
The phase and transient response of both filters will match exactly with
impedance equalization, so in a properly designed crossover network, there is nothing to
choose between the two. Certainly, the parallel variant is easier to design, and this
alone is probably a good reason to stay with a parallel crossover - and probably also
explains why the vast majority of loudspeaker designers use parallel rather than serial. In
addition, a serial crossover cannot be bi-amped or bi-wired.
It is safe to say that neither crossover is possessed of any magic (only skill), so be very
wary of any claims that a particular crossover design is "vastly superior" or "infinitely more
transparent" (or any other hyperbole that may be thrust upon you) in advertising
material. All crossovers, and indeed, all loudspeakers, are a compromise. While the "form
factor" of the crossover is relatively unimportant, the skill and patience required to
execute it properly is what really counts.