Active Crossover Benefits

[tonitonitoni]

not sure about that esoteric speakers, but cheap midbass i deal with everywhere, have to cross at 600hz(or lower) i see no other way of doing it than active. second order passive LR for tweeters though seems to me more easy than active.and omitt low cut part of mid couse of active,and efectively dont have any pasive components of high values.

 

[billshurv]

But another dangerous assumption is one you have just made:

Assuming that 2nd order acoustic is the result of a 1st order electrical network.

Perhaps it is in the single Zaph project you link.

.

I would not suggest LR2 slopes are the RESULT of a first order crossover, merely that in this rare case you only needed a first order electrical network to get the required acoustic LR2. That is why I posted the link, because there is a certain beauty about it.

 

[mondogenerator]

I would not suggest LR2 slopes are the RESULT of a first order crossover, merely that in this rare case you only needed a first order electrical network to get the required acoustic LR2. That is why I posted the link, because there is a certain beauty about it.

Ok I stand corrected (easy to misinterpret here)

Yes there is a degree of beauty, mainly down to the drivers used being unusual in their rollout requiring only a single pole to give a 2nd order roll off.

Sometimes serendipity occurs, more often it doesn't haha

 

[DavidGG]

This guy Connectors, Passive items in KMTech Design store on eBay! sells pcb's, kits and fully assembled ones in the UK.

Never bought anything from him so can't say anything about the quality of his design but he does have pretty decent feedback.
Either way it might be quicker and cheaper than ordering from Oz.

I have bought a pair of the KMtech three way active LR crossovers, and heard a huge improvement, very clear. (Arcam old irDAC box, hypex amp modules UCD 180's, revamped Pro9TL speakers (old KEF B139 in place, Scanspeak replacements for mid and treble)). Was all quite a lot of work, but a huge improvement on old system with standard crossover (had been recapped).
David

 

[plasnu]

Hi OP,

In my opinion, the benefit of active crossover is following:

1. Much less issue with low watt / df single ended amp.
2. Precise phase and time alignment (digital only).
3. Unlimited filter selection including linear phase (some digital only).
4. Super easy room and frequency correction (probably digital only).
5. Extremely low distortion and coloration (probably digital only).

Drawback is:

1. Can't avoid extra active device if the source is analog.
2. Cost.
3. Difficulty. Measurement required.

I personally use digital crossover, because my source is mostly in the computer server. I'm advocating all in one computer music player / crossover solution utilizing pro audio mastering class EQ. Those EQs are more precise and versatile than ordinary digital EQ / filter on the market. DMG Equilibrium is the one I chose, but you can find several different ones if you google.

I have heard a really bad sounding but very expensive analog active horn system before, which was set up only by ears. Active can be a disaster. I guess many of those who say passive is better than active is in this category.

Professionally designed passive crossover speakers can't be a disaster, well, mostly...

 

[Loafmeat]

Hi plasnu,

to your drawback take a look here:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/soft...eiver-over-display-port-hdmi.html#post4745539

I activated my Quadral Vulkan MK4 in this (cheap) way and for me the sound is very good.

Regards
Guenter

 

[iScream]

Hi OP,

In my opinion, the benefit of active crossover is following:

1. Much less issue with low watt / df single ended amp.
2. Precise phase and time alignment (digital only).
3. Unlimited filter selection including linear phase (some digital only).
4. Super easy room and frequency correction (probably digital only).
5. Extremely low distortion and coloration (probably digital only).

Drawback is:

1. Can't avoid extra active device if the source is analog.
2. Cost.
3. Difficulty. Measurement required.

I don't really understand what you mean with #3. Does anyone design quality passive crossovers without measurements in the actual enclosures?

I somewhat agree with #2 but I think most of the cost is in the additional amplification channels you need. But those separate amp channels bring their own benefits for the cost, as covered pretty well in this thread.

The cost for decent DACs doesn't have to be much more than many people spend on passive crossover components and with digital you can tweak and dial in to exactly the acoustic response you want without having to buy new components.

-Chris

 

[plasnu]

I don't really understand what you mean with #3. Does anyone design quality passive crossovers without measurements in the actual enclosures?

I somewhat agree with #2 but I think most of the cost is in the additional amplification channels you need. But those separate amp channels bring their own benefits for the cost, as covered pretty well in this thread.

The cost for decent DACs doesn't have to be much more than many people spend on passive crossover components and with digital you can tweak and dial in to exactly the acoustic response you want without having to buy new components.

-Chris

Thank you fro the comments.

Yes, for proper analog filter design should be much more difficult than digital filter implementation. What I was trying to say is there is an easier way to start DIY speakers if one can accept to use off the shelf analog x-over.

I also agree with your comment about the cost. Actually, digital x-over setup probably can be somewhat less $$$ for the same level of SQ, considering the difference between today's decent multiple channel DAC and 2ch DAC is arguably much smaller than the other part of the signal chain.

So, now I can't really find any drawback if one is OK with digital source only...

PS: In my case, the cost to make 3 x 25w Aleph-J was probably not much more than 1x 75 watt Aleph.