+1
That alone, as a tool, it's priceless.
Every time i come back playing with passive components it feels like i switch my sportscar for a donkey ride.
I don't think active would ever be "inferior", it's just that it isn't all that "superior". In your situation active is really the only choice.
Doing crossover design "subjectively" will almost certainly lead to it being "better" if just because we tend to think that change is always better. Without some measurements you never know where you are going or where you have been.
I contend and I have done lots of studies on this, that I can get with a dB or so passively what I can do actively. Can we hear that, I'm inclined to say no, its too small a difference. Of course it's far easier with active than passive, but the difficulty has never been an issue for me. The one thing that active can do that passive can't is equalize the phase at the same time as the amplitude. Whether this is a significant effect or not, the jury is still out. I went active just to try this out for myself, but I haven't got that part of the experiment done yet.
I suspect most people like active because it's faster and easier to get good results than it is with passive. Therefore it "sounds better".
In my systems there was no reason not to use DSP EQ. As 90% of my music is digital, it's easy and effective to use DSP EQ. I even ran my RIAA preamp into an ADC to get it thru the EQ. The horror!
In my systems there was no reason not to use DSP EQ. As 90% of my music is digital, it's easy and effective to use DSP EQ. I even ran my RIAA preamp into an ADC to get it thru the EQ. The horror!
I spent weeks this summer designing and implementing a 3-way passive crossover. I used boxsim software to model and optimize it. To get a 4th order network on the midrange and tweeter required lots of parts. I had to compensate the impedance of each driver so the crossover would even roll off in some cases. That added three more parts per driver. So for lots of money and lots of parts I had a circuit that almost performs at with the frequencies and slopes I wanted with a few extra bumps that came for free. Oddly enough I developed a desire for high resistance coils. The coils I found for sale use thick low gauge wire and are expensive. Often I needed to add a series resistor in the crossover. So a smaller cheaper high gauge wire coil would be preferable in half of the locations I put coils. Of course in about 2 minutes I was able to twist the knobs on my dbx 223xs active crossover and achieve better results for less money. I have yet to fire up my miniDSP, but I am sure I can achieve even better results with it's flexibility.
Last edited:
"Less money" - how is that possible with 4 amps instead of one?
Of course active is easier, that's not the point. It is more expensive and implementation is complex. Passive is harder initially (not really for me but I have custom software,) but can be just about as good (just as good IMO). Passive but can implemented with an AVR - active cannot. These are all serious factors.
Well, right now on ebay $35 brings a two channel LM3886 Amp Board+rectify filter LM3886TF KIT add a few dollars for a transformer.
While a single 12 mH choke can start at $ 15. A 4th order crossover with driver impedance compensation for a midrange will have three chokes and 3 caps and resistors.
Specious argument. Amps are not free but they can be had very cheap if patient and you shop around. Decent DSP is not expensive, and for my HT (6 surround + 4 subs) it cost substantially less than the cost of the passive parts for the xovers. I already have a huge number of amp channels, so they were effectively free.
As Tony has wisely said, depends on your specific application whether it's more profitable and easier to go actively or passively. Me, I would never ever make a mistake (IMO) and work on an electical 4th order filter and an RCL to compensate the impedance at very low frequencies. Instead, I choose to use a woofer that is good for lower midrange and there I would cross it over with no need for large inductors or other network types, plus I wound my own coils, with or without a core. I also have had a chance to buy a large amount of solid quality caps for cheap, so the only things missing are resistors. The cost is effectively at minimum and the stereo rig looks nice without too many cables and other unnecessary (in my case) electronics. With the aid of simulation software one doesn't have to have too many components at once to experiment with. That active sounds better is not something I belive in. Yes, the measurement curves can be made to look smoother but this kind of a difference is more of a cosmetic nature IMO.
Know where can I source a half-decent 24 bit 96 kHz ADC board for 40...50 euros in Europe? My current 20 euro ADC is noisy as hell.
Hmm, it seems that things have changed somewhat since last year. Back then only PowerDVD was able to reliably play blu-rays and AnyDVD was shut down meaning decrypting blu-ray discs got more difficult. As a result I gave up ideas about blu-ray. Now I found this: Best Video Converters, Blu-ray/DVD Software, Utilities Tools | Leawo Software Player seems to be totally free, but ripper costs 100 bucks for "lifetime" license. Though AnyDVD seems to be up and running again; the arms race between media consumers and copyright holders is never-ending.
Much of that can usually be avoided with plate DSP-amps, such as the miniDSP PWR-ICE or Hypex lines. That does presuppose that one can run line-level interconnects to each channel and that there is a power outlet reasonably close to each one.
But that's a really good reason. Less time futzing and more time enjoying music is a good thing!
That said, I'm getting really intrigued by the "minimalist passive + EQ" approach that JBL employs with their "7-series" monitors. In a nutshell they have a passive crossover and can be used with a single amp channel, but the "full crossover" is a combination of and preset equalization in the amp. Part of it is a neat trick to capture more revenue by forcing amp/processor purchases along with the speakers - and Harman's Crown DSP-amps and BSS processors with 7-series presets are very, very expensive. A DIYer could probably do something similar with an AVR or pre-pro that includes parametric EQ in addition to or instead of an automated room correction program, such as the Yamahas.
That's usually what I do. Passive crossover and active EQ via dedicated hardware or software on the PC. Works just fine. Easy to do.
When I rebuilt my HT just recently I had 3 subs with plate amps. 2 of them were not working, so I placed them with a rack amp. I cannot think of a worse place to put electronics than inside of a speaker enclosure. And, rack amps tend to work better and cost less, but many are too noisy (if they have fans) and they do "bulk up" the equipment enclosure. Cons either way you go, but I still think that the reliability of rack amps over plate amps wins out.
If I abandon full active I will do just what you are saying. I do it now to a certain extent using both the AVR EQ and the external DSP. I will do a simple passive crossover and then tweek-in the response with the AVR. This is looking more and more attractive. Although, one cannot do anything non-minimum phase in this way and that was one of my major intentions in going active.
FIR 1792 Tap is way way too short for music playback purpose. I currently use 200,000 taps and I can clearly hear the difference from 130,000 that I was previously using. Now I can safely bypass the window function, which makes sound bad in any case. I guess 400,000 is much better than 200,000, but I can't do it in my system.
As CORD DAC designer said, the problem with the DAC brick wall filter is the tap is way too short. And the crossover filter is much more sensitive to the tap length compare to DAC brick wall, because the handled frequency is much lower.
Have 3 setups around the house. Will be increased to 4 or maybe 5 during the year.
1 is active 4way with loads of amps and choices, 1 is just MA 10.2 with TPA3116, 1 is OB Seas FU10 with 1st order xo to some sealed dual Seas 6,5" for bass and an 70's Nikko amp.
The sound of the 4way is really good, but I always end up fiddling alot with it and not really enjoying it.
The sound of the MA 10.2 is pretty good, but lacks low end since it's alone (good output down to around 60hz), but it's perfectly fine since it's in the two princesses room with some disco lights they can party and jump about (oldest is 6 now, youngest is 4).
I spend alot of time listening to the 1st order passive setup with the old Nikko receiver and the Seas FU10RB and the double 6,5". So this is the system that I enjoy the most, it was also the least amount of work of all my builds, ever. Does it sound as good as the big stuff downstairs? Do not think so, but it's a lot more enjoyable experience.
1 is active 4way with loads of amps and choices, 1 is just MA 10.2 with TPA3116, 1 is OB Seas FU10 with 1st order xo to some sealed dual Seas 6,5" for bass and an 70's Nikko amp.
The sound of the 4way is really good, but I always end up fiddling alot with it and not really enjoying it.
The sound of the MA 10.2 is pretty good, but lacks low end since it's alone (good output down to around 60hz), but it's perfectly fine since it's in the two princesses room with some disco lights they can party and jump about (oldest is 6 now, youngest is 4).
I spend alot of time listening to the 1st order passive setup with the old Nikko receiver and the Seas FU10RB and the double 6,5". So this is the system that I enjoy the most, it was also the least amount of work of all my builds, ever. Does it sound as good as the big stuff downstairs? Do not think so, but it's a lot more enjoyable experience.
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.