active versus passive
N10,
Active crossovers are actually cheaper to build than more complex passive XOs using quality components. A couple (or even one) of expensive caps will cost more than an active crossover.
The cost is in additional power amps one has to build or buy. Depending on crossover frequencies mid and high drivers can be driven from smaller power A class or most of the time A class amps, which are generally cheaper to build than high power amps.
cheers,
N10,
Active crossovers are actually cheaper to build than more complex passive XOs using quality components. A couple (or even one) of expensive caps will cost more than an active crossover.
The cost is in additional power amps one has to build or buy. Depending on crossover frequencies mid and high drivers can be driven from smaller power A class or most of the time A class amps, which are generally cheaper to build than high power amps.
cheers,
Re: Crossovers Active vs. Passive
Hi,
For your first attempt, you should keep it as simple as possible. Active crossovers are electronic filters and require a power supply. They are quite complex and can take a long time to build.
You should try passive first. Are you interested in how to design passive filters? Do you know the basics, such as how a capacitor works or an inductor? Do you know what a Zobel is and where you would use it? Do you know what an L-pad is and where to use it?
There is a fair bit of learning to do here.
N10 said:
Hi,
For your first attempt, you should keep it as simple as possible. Active crossovers are electronic filters and require a power supply. They are quite complex and can take a long time to build.
You should try passive first. Are you interested in how to design passive filters? Do you know the basics, such as how a capacitor works or an inductor? Do you know what a Zobel is and where you would use it? Do you know what an L-pad is and where to use it?
There is a fair bit of learning to do here.
Or buy a commercial electronic X-over, I saw an add the other week, $199 AUD for the Behringer CX2310 and I paid over $350 just a few years ago. Use the active for the low pass at 125/250 and passive for the HF, I have made an assumption here that you can seperate the pre-amp signal and have the basic skills needed to make the patch-cords and can find a power amp to cover one of the bands
Re: Crossovers Active vs. Passive
The dayton tweeter has always had some QC issues, and is still very much in question. For a few more $ you can do much better. Visit Zaph's site for "tweeter mismash" reviews... cost vs THD perf, Look for lower Fs units (650 - 700 Hz)
http://www.zaphaudio.com/tweetermishmash/
Active you need another PA or two of course, along with a 2 or 3 way xover (if using a DIY kit add a small +/-PS). To lower cost further you can use National Semi chip amps for mids and tweeter sections as the power is less by half to 1/4. It's cheaper in the long run if you are seriously in the hobby as passive crossovers get expensive if changes and mods are continuous.
N10 said:
The dayton tweeter has always had some QC issues, and is still very much in question. For a few more $ you can do much better. Visit Zaph's site for "tweeter mismash" reviews... cost vs THD perf, Look for lower Fs units (650 - 700 Hz)
http://www.zaphaudio.com/tweetermishmash/
N10 said:
Active you need another PA or two of course, along with a 2 or 3 way xover (if using a DIY kit add a small +/-PS). To lower cost further you can use National Semi chip amps for mids and tweeter sections as the power is less by half to 1/4. It's cheaper in the long run if you are seriously in the hobby as passive crossovers get expensive if changes and mods are continuous.
Re: Crossovers Active vs. Passive
Hmmm.......
If anything driver choice depends on crossover choice, not the other way
round. Drivers are generally chosen such that the c/o topology works well.
If it doesn't either the topology or the drivers are changed.
If you go active then the assumptions made (that you are going to use passive)
mean that the optimum choice of drivers is rather different for an active set-up.
FWIW :
http://www.parts-express.com/pe/pshowdetl.cfm?&DID=7&Partnumber=295-320&ctab=1#Tabs
Is a more classic wider range 12" driver, easier to integrate with
a non-BSC'd midrange (i.e. midband sensitivity = midrange driver),
whilst :
http://www.parts-express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?Partnumber=295-120
Is more of a subwoofer, with more maximum output capability.
The W5 is a valid alternative to the P13.
The tweeter is the Morel ?
You could consider the Vifa D27's also from PE.
For simple crossovers choosing a tweeter based on low Fs is far too
simplistic due to excursion issues, somewhat higher Fs can be better.
IMO if you are going passive, to utilise your choice of bass unit optimally
a better idea IMO is higher efficiency midrange crossed lower such that it
is subject to some BSC (i.e. midrange sensitivity is not = midrange driver)
If you are going active the goalposts completely move.
You can have lower power mid/treble amps with higher efficiency drivers.
Active BSC frees up the choice of bass / mid crossover point.
/sreten.
N10 said:
Hmmm.......
If anything driver choice depends on crossover choice, not the other way
round. Drivers are generally chosen such that the c/o topology works well.
If it doesn't either the topology or the drivers are changed.
If you go active then the assumptions made (that you are going to use passive)
mean that the optimum choice of drivers is rather different for an active set-up.
FWIW :
http://www.parts-express.com/pe/pshowdetl.cfm?&DID=7&Partnumber=295-320&ctab=1#Tabs
Is a more classic wider range 12" driver, easier to integrate with
a non-BSC'd midrange (i.e. midband sensitivity = midrange driver),
whilst :
http://www.parts-express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?Partnumber=295-120
Is more of a subwoofer, with more maximum output capability.
The W5 is a valid alternative to the P13.
The tweeter is the Morel ?
You could consider the Vifa D27's also from PE.
For simple crossovers choosing a tweeter based on low Fs is far too
simplistic due to excursion issues, somewhat higher Fs can be better.
IMO if you are going passive, to utilise your choice of bass unit optimally
a better idea IMO is higher efficiency midrange crossed lower such that it
is subject to some BSC (i.e. midrange sensitivity is not = midrange driver)
If you are going active the goalposts completely move.
You can have lower power mid/treble amps with higher efficiency drivers.
Active BSC frees up the choice of bass / mid crossover point.
/sreten.Hello,
Sorry about reviving an old thread. I am new to the forum and was wondering if this project was ever finished. I am in kind of the same boat that N10 was, and I was interested to see how his project turned out.
I thought that some very good advice was being given to him, and was interested to hear what he thought about the sound.
I may ask for some help as soon as I feel I am informed enough to ask the right questions.
Thanks!
Sorry about reviving an old thread. I am new to the forum and was wondering if this project was ever finished. I am in kind of the same boat that N10 was, and I was interested to see how his project turned out.
I thought that some very good advice was being given to him, and was interested to hear what he thought about the sound.
I may ask for some help as soon as I feel I am informed enough to ask the right questions.
Thanks!
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.