Okay......
Welcome aboard, but you do realise this is a Do It Yourself forum? A fundamental belief around here is it's fun to try to do better than the manufacturers. Not that we're always successful, but it's one of those "journey, not the destination" things.
Here is how I see it:
Advantages of Active crossover before Amps:
Lower IM due to not having full frequency on any amp.
Lower reactance on both power amplifiers due to crossover before amp.
Clipping does not affect other driver.
More headroom because of limited bandwidth on amplifiers.
Advantages of multiple Amps with Passive crossover after amps:
None
Advantage of Single amplifier:
Simplicity
Well designed crossovers can present a benign load.
Advantages of Active crossover before Amps:
Lower IM due to not having full frequency on any amp.
Lower reactance on both power amplifiers due to crossover before amp.
Clipping does not affect other driver.
More headroom because of limited bandwidth on amplifiers.
Advantages of multiple Amps with Passive crossover after amps:
None
Advantage of Single amplifier:
Simplicity
Well designed crossovers can present a benign load.
my reaction,
With cross over after amp advantage.
1. Out of band IM products is filtered out by filter.
2. Not the case with filter before amp.
3. Equalitation intended by speaker manufacturer is still their.
4. X-over and phase as intended still there.
5. IM in amp the same as filter before amp since with filter after amp, the amp dont deliver power due to filter, out band.
With cross over after amp advantage.
1. Out of band IM products is filtered out by filter.
2. Not the case with filter before amp.
3. Equalitation intended by speaker manufacturer is still their.
4. X-over and phase as intended still there.
5. IM in amp the same as filter before amp since with filter after amp, the amp dont deliver power due to filter, out band.
Versatility. I have to change EQ and driver levels depending on the situation, be it mood, ear pressure, elixirs or other factors.
Huge advantage over single amp and fixed passive XO or even bi-amping with a passive XO. To me a bi-amp with a passive is the first step. It's really just a wannabe.
To each his own though. That's what makes us individuals.
Huge advantage over single amp and fixed passive XO or even bi-amping with a passive XO. To me a bi-amp with a passive is the first step. It's really just a wannabe.
To each his own though. That's what makes us individuals.
I would almost buy the passive filter after the amp but it loses the advantages of the amp dealing with the driver load, not the passive network. You still get IM issues due to the feedback. I am not sure I would hold all the speaker designers in as high esteem as many here have skill. A lot of what is sold out there is not just cheap for price point, but not well designed. In DIY land, you can decide how close is close enough.
Active crossovers have great advantages for home high end. For an example, go visit our friend , Siegfried Linkwtz to see how they can be put to advantage in ways that would never work in a passive system. Not enough? Go build yourself a 4th order LR 60 Hz crossover.
Active crossovers have great advantages for home high end. For an example, go visit our friend , Siegfried Linkwtz to see how they can be put to advantage in ways that would never work in a passive system. Not enough? Go build yourself a 4th order LR 60 Hz crossover.
Hung over me:
"What the hell is going on, how did my subwoofer amplifier get turned up so far?"
One thing for sure, is that you can't do impedance correction with active crossover. But, as always it depends on many factors, so I don't think we end up with on techology that the best.
I prefer my digital crossover because of no analog path, and most of all because I can make room corrections.
I prefer my digital crossover because of no analog path, and most of all because I can make room corrections.
Active filtering
I use B&W matrix 804, these went back to their research labs and the passive crossovers were removed. An active crossover was customised and tested in their anechoic chamber. The results provide a significantly smoother frequency response - the results are so much better than a factory fresh pair of speakers.
Your use of the passive crossovers after the power amplifier are a compromise as a result of phase and power handling, they cannot come close to a good active crossover system (IMHO). The main thing is that you are happy with your system....
I use B&W matrix 804, these went back to their research labs and the passive crossovers were removed. An active crossover was customised and tested in their anechoic chamber. The results provide a significantly smoother frequency response - the results are so much better than a factory fresh pair of speakers.
Your use of the passive crossovers after the power amplifier are a compromise as a result of phase and power handling, they cannot come close to a good active crossover system (IMHO). The main thing is that you are happy with your system....
???
You want serious? OK, here goes: stop trolling.
If by serious reply you mean "will someone please agree with me" it looks like you aren't going to get too many of those.
You want serious? OK, here goes: stop trolling.
I use a measurement microphone, and my ears. I have a heavy bump around 50 Hz caused by my room. If not corrected bass is boomy, no matter how good the recording is. A factory tuned x over can never predict how your speakers and room interact. A speaker and room can never be separated. But, as long as we take FIR filters out of the equation, I don't think active (analog as well as IIR digital) have major advantages over passive. You could easily tune your Martin Logan with an external eq of some sort, and more advanced room controllers like Lyngdorf that include phasecorrection as well as eq.
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.