Hi,
I have a pretty complicated and crazy 4-way system under construction (finally!). Naturally fully activating such system requires quite a stack of electronics.
Is fully active setup really worth it?
Better control over each diaphgram, less distorsion(?), better use of efficiency...
Perhaps I should tell a bit more of the system. It's pretty much Audio Artistry inspired 4-way open baffle system. First I'll finish the main panels and then add woofer colums later. Original Beethoven used passive crossovers with its mainpanel. Later Elite and Grand models, Phoenix kit and Orion are fully active designs. In both Orion and Phoenix cases I understand why. Crossover frequences are pretty critical and drivers are pretty much extended to their limits (1400Hz cross to tweeter) and low crossover points (100Hz 2nd in Phoenix, 4th order 120Hz in Orion) would require huge passive components.
Then there are systems like NaO that uses half-active approach using passive upper cross in the panel and has active cross for the lower crossing.
My system has Dynaudio Esotar tweeters in waveguided setup, twin W18E001 Excels for midrange duty and twin 25W/8565-01 Scan Speaks for lower mids. Woofers determined later. With these aspects few things are different to Orion/Beethoven/Phoenix systems. Uppermids are smaller and crossover point to tweeter could be somewhere around 2-2,5Khz. Lower cross can be done with gentle 1st to 2nd order loop around 250-300Hz. Lowest cross to separated woofers is going to be active. And active highpass for the mainpanel would allow some active response shaping where it's required. Mainly 100-500Hz dipole equalizations comes to my mind. Therefore most passive components would be just for the crossing, not that much needed to eq the response and therefore most of the efficiency is also saved.
What do you think? Half active with two stereoamps or fully active with a whole lot more stuff. Is fully active worth it in this case?
Thanks!
Jussi
I have a pretty complicated and crazy 4-way system under construction (finally!). Naturally fully activating such system requires quite a stack of electronics.
Is fully active setup really worth it?
Better control over each diaphgram, less distorsion(?), better use of efficiency...
Perhaps I should tell a bit more of the system. It's pretty much Audio Artistry inspired 4-way open baffle system. First I'll finish the main panels and then add woofer colums later. Original Beethoven used passive crossovers with its mainpanel. Later Elite and Grand models, Phoenix kit and Orion are fully active designs. In both Orion and Phoenix cases I understand why. Crossover frequences are pretty critical and drivers are pretty much extended to their limits (1400Hz cross to tweeter) and low crossover points (100Hz 2nd in Phoenix, 4th order 120Hz in Orion) would require huge passive components.
Then there are systems like NaO that uses half-active approach using passive upper cross in the panel and has active cross for the lower crossing.
My system has Dynaudio Esotar tweeters in waveguided setup, twin W18E001 Excels for midrange duty and twin 25W/8565-01 Scan Speaks for lower mids. Woofers determined later. With these aspects few things are different to Orion/Beethoven/Phoenix systems. Uppermids are smaller and crossover point to tweeter could be somewhere around 2-2,5Khz. Lower cross can be done with gentle 1st to 2nd order loop around 250-300Hz. Lowest cross to separated woofers is going to be active. And active highpass for the mainpanel would allow some active response shaping where it's required. Mainly 100-500Hz dipole equalizations comes to my mind. Therefore most passive components would be just for the crossing, not that much needed to eq the response and therefore most of the efficiency is also saved.
What do you think? Half active with two stereoamps or fully active with a whole lot more stuff. Is fully active worth it in this case?
Thanks!
Jussi
I'm a fan of fully active systems. This is largely because I am more likely to carry the design through to the end if I only have to change a few cents worth of resistors than more expensive passive XO parts. I already own a bunch of amps so that isn't a consideration for me.
Take a look at the FR plot of the W18E001. The main breakup mode starts rising just above your proposed crossover point. It will take a lot of effort to tame that, if you can tame it at all crossing above 2K. I'd look to cross to a suitable tweeter as close to 1KHz as I could.
Nothing but money says that you cannot cross passively at very high slopes. Search for the Modula MTM on the HTguide forum for an example of how to make a Cauer-Elliptic filter that approximates an 8th order L-R in the crossover region. It suppresses breakups by 50 dB or so, and then reverts to a 4th order roll off.
For the price of crossover like that, you could build a multi channel gainclone and an active crossover. Do you see where I am going
Another issue with a high crossover and MTM is that you'll get a big change in directivity and lobing issues at the crossover point. Your center to center distance will be greater than a wavelength, and you are starting to get some beaming with a 6" driver at 2kHz.
Seems like S-L had something there - The more I try to come up with something like Orion the more I end up being driven back to the very similar ideas. Maybe try an updated Phoenix - like an MTM version of the Orion? If you need more output add another set of W22s crossed in to counter the dipole roll-off before crossing to a quartet of XLS12s. That's what I would do if I had the money and room.
Take a look at the FR plot of the W18E001. The main breakup mode starts rising just above your proposed crossover point. It will take a lot of effort to tame that, if you can tame it at all crossing above 2K. I'd look to cross to a suitable tweeter as close to 1KHz as I could.
Nothing but money says that you cannot cross passively at very high slopes. Search for the Modula MTM on the HTguide forum for an example of how to make a Cauer-Elliptic filter that approximates an 8th order L-R in the crossover region. It suppresses breakups by 50 dB or so, and then reverts to a 4th order roll off.
For the price of crossover like that, you could build a multi channel gainclone and an active crossover. Do you see where I am going
Another issue with a high crossover and MTM is that you'll get a big change in directivity and lobing issues at the crossover point. Your center to center distance will be greater than a wavelength, and you are starting to get some beaming with a 6" driver at 2kHz.
Seems like S-L had something there - The more I try to come up with something like Orion the more I end up being driven back to the very similar ideas. Maybe try an updated Phoenix - like an MTM version of the Orion? If you need more output add another set of W22s crossed in to counter the dipole roll-off before crossing to a quartet of XLS12s. That's what I would do if I had the money and room.
(JPK) Hi Jussi. You will probably never get a truly unbiased answer to this question. There are positives and negatives to both fully passive and fully active approaches.
And then there is my take on hybrid design.
http://www.musicanddesign.com/HybridDesign.html
I see little point or advantage to driving a tweeter from a separate amplifier provided the LP filter for the midrange driver can be suitable designed. If the mid is a metal cone with nasty breakup, the breakup may be easier to deal with in an active circuit, but if it can't be handled passively perhaps the better solution is to look for a driver with more satisfactory response.
On the other hand, the NaO AEP used the W18E001 with a 2.0k Hz crossover point and a passive mid to tweeter x-o with no problems.
The all active approach appeals to some because you can get out your EE filter text book and cascade stages of HP, LP notches, shelves, delays, etc, to shape the response as you like in a brute force engineering approach. Passives, or all actives designed to minimize the number of active stages, are a little more imaginative.
I would think your main 3-way system would be ideally suited for a hybrid approach. If you want to add an additional sub later, then that would probably be easiest to do with a power sub and active x-o to the 3-way.
And then there is my take on hybrid design.
http://www.musicanddesign.com/HybridDesign.html
I see little point or advantage to driving a tweeter from a separate amplifier provided the LP filter for the midrange driver can be suitable designed. If the mid is a metal cone with nasty breakup, the breakup may be easier to deal with in an active circuit, but if it can't be handled passively perhaps the better solution is to look for a driver with more satisfactory response.
On the other hand, the NaO AEP used the W18E001 with a 2.0k Hz crossover point and a passive mid to tweeter x-o with no problems.
The all active approach appeals to some because you can get out your EE filter text book and cascade stages of HP, LP notches, shelves, delays, etc, to shape the response as you like in a brute force engineering approach. Passives, or all actives designed to minimize the number of active stages, are a little more imaginative.
I would think your main 3-way system would be ideally suited for a hybrid approach. If you want to add an additional sub later, then that would probably be easiest to do with a power sub and active x-o to the 3-way.
John is much more skilled at this stuff than I. Idon't doubt that the NAO sounds good, but I don't think I could come up with a design that crosses that high and sounds good.
As for cascading textbook filter sections, guilty as charged. At my level of (in)expertise I find it easier to get good results that way than trying to be clever and make each section serve multiple functions. I've played with simulations and think I can get something that will work passively for many situations, assuming that the impedance curves are accurately measured.
I already have plenty of amplification and a room where nobody objects to lots of equipment, so I can indulge my bias/fantasy. Staying passive for Mid-Tweet crossover is a good compromise for many, though.
As for cascading textbook filter sections, guilty as charged.
At my level of (in)expertise I find it easier to get good results that way than trying to be clever and make each section serve multiple functions. I've played with simulations and think I can get something that will work passively for many situations, assuming that the impedance curves are accurately measured.I already have plenty of amplification and a room where nobody objects to lots of equipment, so I can indulge my bias/fantasy. Staying passive for Mid-Tweet crossover is a good compromise for many, though.
Bob,
I know W18E problems. But they are also implemented pretty well with 2-2,5Khz crosses in Ellis 1801, Seas kits Thor and Odin and so on. Unfortunately I don't have measurements from any of them but I'll make some from my own cadget to find best possible xover point when it comes to distorsion and ringing.
John,
I know this is one of the infinite questions and there are numerous different aspects to think it through.
Here couple points I can think of:
1. How big advantage active system really has so it compensates poorer overall electronics. Bigger pile, less quality for each instrument.
2. Top quality active crossover isn't easy task. There are still some advantages in passive components.
Jussi
I know W18E problems. But they are also implemented pretty well with 2-2,5Khz crosses in Ellis 1801, Seas kits Thor and Odin and so on. Unfortunately I don't have measurements from any of them but I'll make some from my own cadget to find best possible xover point when it comes to distorsion and ringing.
John,
I know this is one of the infinite questions and there are numerous different aspects to think it through.
Here couple points I can think of:
1. How big advantage active system really has so it compensates poorer overall electronics. Bigger pile, less quality for each instrument.
2. Top quality active crossover isn't easy task. There are still some advantages in passive components.
Jussi
John,
Did you actually try NaO with all active crossover?
If different frequency ranges are played with similar sensitivity drivers (not that much resistors in passive crossover), responses are matched and phasing works, is there really that much difference between active and passive crossovers? Difference in transparency? Integration?
Normal 2-2,5Khz cross doesn't even need that large components and there are plenty of low loss components available. That 250-300Hz 1st to 2nd order is a bit different thought...
Jussi
Did you actually try NaO with all active crossover?
If different frequency ranges are played with similar sensitivity drivers (not that much resistors in passive crossover), responses are matched and phasing works, is there really that much difference between active and passive crossovers? Difference in transparency? Integration?
Normal 2-2,5Khz cross doesn't even need that large components and there are plenty of low loss components available. That 250-300Hz 1st to 2nd order is a bit different thought...
Jussi
(JPK) I designed a fully active version of the NaO II as an option. The fully active design matches the transfer functions of the hybrid system as closely as possible. I have played both systems at length, even playing one channel fully active and one channel hybrid. Driven by the same electronics I can not reliably identify which system is which.
Agree with John K, regarding the tweeter, although I tend to look at 4-ways unless my mid has quite a wide range.
Current set-up is a non-DIY 2-way actively crossed to bass bins. Working on a subwoofer (also to be active). Also working on (with same bass bins) an active 4-way (but mids and tweeters to be passively X-ed) and an active 3-way (probably also with mids and tweeters passive).
The cost of good passive components in Australia starts at around $10-20, the next step up being $60-100 (and then stratosphere). Even a fairly simple passive can cost you the same as a cheap eBay sourced amp and a Behringer CX-2310. The sound may not be as good, but it's very easy to experiment with.
Current set-up is a non-DIY 2-way actively crossed to bass bins. Working on a subwoofer (also to be active). Also working on (with same bass bins) an active 4-way (but mids and tweeters to be passively X-ed) and an active 3-way (probably also with mids and tweeters passive).
The cost of good passive components in Australia starts at around $10-20, the next step up being $60-100 (and then stratosphere). Even a fairly simple passive can cost you the same as a cheap eBay sourced amp and a Behringer CX-2310. The sound may not be as good, but it's very easy to experiment with.
John is correct, although he forgot to mention one very important (IMHO) other possible advantage to the all active approach. Adaptablity.
There is no reason why one would want to change (for example) the XO frequency from mid to high after the final design stage. So passive vs active there is a wash.
But what happens if you decide (or the SAF ) to rearrange the room. Or move the speakers around the room. Or move to a different room or house. Maybe an environment that is a bit more lively and reflective. Where you want to adjust the voicing on the treble or even midrange. Something like my DCX can easily adapt. Doing so passively at the xo stage would not be trivial. One can try passive correction to the room itself, although I find this method to be a bit too non-linear and somewhat bothersome to not do it actively.
Or at least in conjunction with active correction. My 2c's.
cheers,
AJ
There is no reason why one would want to change (for example) the XO frequency from mid to high after the final design stage. So passive vs active there is a wash.
But what happens if you decide (or the SAF
) to rearrange the room. Or move the speakers around the room. Or move to a different room or house. Maybe an environment that is a bit more lively and reflective. Where you want to adjust the voicing on the treble or even midrange. Something like my DCX can easily adapt. Doing so passively at the xo stage would not be trivial. One can try passive correction to the room itself, although I find this method to be a bit too non-linear and somewhat bothersome to not do it actively.Or at least in conjunction with active correction. My 2c's.
cheers,
AJ
Well I have DCX-2496 for prototyping but I'm not going to get married with it. After topology and desired balance is found I'll upgrade it to normal HQ analog activefilter or use passive crossover.
Adaptablity. That's a good point. But how much systems really need adjustments? I understand adjustable bass level which is already needed to pad differences in different recordings bass level but what about else? And if adapting is started, does it ever end? I know one DIY builder here in Finland that still is bouncing between different setups with his DCX. Has done it year and a half.
By experiment I noticed that it would be useful to have for example +-3dB 100-300Hz shelving eq in a system. So response starts shaping from 300Hz and desired +-3dB (max, perhaps 1dB steps) is achieved at 100Hz. With this it's possible to remove some undesirable boom from heavy bass recordings and add some grunt to light footed ones.
Jussi
Adaptablity. That's a good point. But how much systems really need adjustments? I understand adjustable bass level which is already needed to pad differences in different recordings bass level but what about else? And if adapting is started, does it ever end? I know one DIY builder here in Finland that still is bouncing between different setups with his DCX. Has done it year and a half.
By experiment I noticed that it would be useful to have for example +-3dB 100-300Hz shelving eq in a system. So response starts shaping from 300Hz and desired +-3dB (max, perhaps 1dB steps) is achieved at 100Hz. With this it's possible to remove some undesirable boom from heavy bass recordings and add some grunt to light footed ones.
Jussi
For some in depth info. regarding active X and biamp/triamp, here's some good reading: http://sound.westhost.com/articles.htm
My subject.
The answer to your question is "yes", in my opinion. Am an all-active listener for some years now, and absolutely love it.
Some people like to tweak their cross-over for years and then start a new project because there's stills something missing, I prefer to tweak some pot meters and have 80% of the result in 20 minutes. The last 20% is a matter of days, provided all drivers are broken in.
This is my current active setup:
Speakers are still breaking in, I recently finished that project after an 18 months build period.
Top shelf in rack: CD-player and pre-amp
middle shelf: Active filter unit
bottom shelf. Classé CAV-150 6-channel (6x150W) HT power amp.
Filter unit looks like this inside and comes from THEL in Germany:
Awesome stuff. As you can see, power supply is double mono and big enoug to drive a small power stage.
This set-up is not cheap, but worth the bucks.
A good start unit to play around with active speakers is the Hypex Active Home 3 plate amp. In fact it's like the above proposed 3-fold "gainclone" power opamp powerstages with filtering circuitry mounted onto a plate. Easy to mount in the back of a speaker and the sound is just stunning. And that for 230 Euros a throw.
Unfortunately, Hypex stopped producing these plate amps, so resort to e-bay or the like to obtain some second hand units. Maybe some suppliers still have some old stock....
The answer to your question is "yes", in my opinion. Am an all-active listener for some years now, and absolutely love it.
Some people like to tweak their cross-over for years and then start a new project because there's stills something missing, I prefer to tweak some pot meters and have 80% of the result in 20 minutes. The last 20% is a matter of days, provided all drivers are broken in.
This is my current active setup:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Speakers are still breaking in, I recently finished that project after an 18 months build period.
Top shelf in rack: CD-player and pre-amp
middle shelf: Active filter unit
bottom shelf. Classé CAV-150 6-channel (6x150W) HT power amp.
Filter unit looks like this inside and comes from THEL in Germany:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Awesome stuff. As you can see, power supply is double mono and big enoug to drive a small power stage.
This set-up is not cheap, but worth the bucks.
A good start unit to play around with active speakers is the Hypex Active Home 3 plate amp. In fact it's like the above proposed 3-fold "gainclone" power opamp powerstages with filtering circuitry mounted onto a plate. Easy to mount in the back of a speaker and the sound is just stunning. And that for 230 Euros a throw.
Unfortunately, Hypex stopped producing these plate amps, so resort to e-bay or the like to obtain some second hand units. Maybe some suppliers still have some old stock....
fgroen said:Some people like to tweak their cross-over for years and then start a new project because there's stills something missing, I prefer to tweak some pot meters and have 80% of the result in 20 minutes. The last 20% is a matter of days, provided all drivers are broken in.
But what about after that? When drivers are broken in and sound is 100% perfect for own ears. Or is it, ever? Infinite path, part of the fun.
Looks great. What drivers it uses? Looks like Accuton C2-90, have you liked it?
Nice setup. I've searched for that CAV-150. They aren't in production anymore and I think I'll just have to wait that such unit appears somewhere on used market.
Jussi
Jussi said:
But what about after that? When drivers are broken in and sound is 100% perfect for own ears. Or is it, ever? Infinite path, part of the fun.
Was a bit charged.. Of course there are also a lot of people happy with passive systems. I think, however, that with a given driver set-up and cabinets, an active system will give more.
To test that assertion, I intend to build a replica of the Avalon Opus Ceramique (have drivers and cabinets in house already) and operate them with good filtering (a Dutch guy called Marc Heijligers did a wonderful job tweaking passive filters), as well as actively.
Jussi said:
Thanks. Am very pleased with the result. Looks even better with the cloth grilles on.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
The ceramic units need a lot of hours to break in. I feared the C2-90 to be hard and analytical (as is often reported with Accuton units) but in fact, the system sounds really tranquil, very detailed without any harshness. Still the handbrake is on, but I expect that after sufficient break-in I will be rewarded with loads of detail.
Shortly said: that C2-90 is a jewel. Very happy bunny here.
Jussi said:
Yeah. I don't know about that modern Classé stuff. First they did things wrong switching to 5-channel amps and now people just have to buy stacks of amps again, as 3 channels is maximum.
I was once tempted by a CAV-500, but that was a 5-channel amp too, thus one channel short!
I can't help but tease: I've got 2 CAV-150's
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Maybe I'll sell the silver one in the future. For the moment I hang on to it, since I also have the idea to set up a HT system. Originally, this project was set up as a 4-way speaker (Eton 12", Accuton C2-220, C2-79 and C2-12). Having bought all materials (drivers and the second Classé) Accuton launched the C2-90. So I decided to make it a 3-way anyway since the C2-90 was capable of taking the place of the C2-220/C2-79 combination.
fgroen said:
Given? Yours or mine?
Sure there are plenty of high power passive systems. Big Wilsons, JmLab Utopias, Acapella horns and so on. But would they also be better active? At least the whole industry is pretty allergic to active approach even while it has it's advantages.
Have you tried passive systems and what made you settle up for full active? Adjustments is a big plus but does a system need it after good setup is found?
Thanks. Am very pleased with the result. Looks even better with the cloth grilles on.
Break in wasnt completed but could you give some hints how they sound? "Good" isn't that detailed information and you know how addictive people are when it comes to details.
Jussi
I assert that the industry is allergic to active systems because the customers are.
Anyhow, the advantages are not only a quicker set-up, but also:
- less intermodulation distortion (every power amp only processes a limited band of signal)
- much more power headroom
- Distortion due to overdrive (caused by bass tones) will not destroy your tweeter due to higher harmonics
- better impulse response because amps are driving speakers directly
- better defined functionality of cross-over
- All drivers use their full efficiency. No "spilling" of amplifier power into resistors.
So far my sales pitch for active systems.
I tried and built passive systems in the past. In fact, my next project is a pair of Scanspeak A4-like monitors based on Troels Gravesen's design (with 970000 tweeter), which will have normal passive crossover. That pair will serve in the living room. (as opposed to my Audio-room, where my active speakers are... )
Two-way speakers are quite easy to get right, three- or more-way systems are quite a fuss. Also the efficiency issue restricts driver choices etc. My previous system made me go active, because I just couldn't get it right. Part of the problem was that the woofer had a slightly higher sensitivity than the midrange.
It didn't sound bad, but compared to good factory systems it just wasn't there. Switching to active showed potential in the first 20 minutes and it hadn't let me down since.
Some hints of the sound of my new system:
For starters, absolutely dry bass. Active system with closed box loading is a good combination. I discovered a whole new realm of melodies in the bass regions in my CD-collection. No tones are emphasized, very gradual roll-off guarantees a deep fundament.
Speaking in terms of bass, mids and highs sells this system short. Music is just there and flows. No agressiveness, no harsch edges, just music. Drivers and speakers already disappear. There is a kind of naturalness about it.
Stress is absolutely absent. This often results in my girlfriend coming into the room asking to lower the volume, while I don't have the impression that it's that loud. The fact that I don't hear my girlfriend speak while her lips are moving tells me different though.
Although there is a kind of serenity to the sound, it is by no means dull. Details are present, not overly exagerated, but just proportionally right. I can sit and listen to music at realistic levels without getting tired at all. In fact, it's an ideal way of relaxing after a day's work.
Although it's not finished yet (I think I'm at 70% from what's possible with this set-up), I'm really happy this far. I'm looking forward to the extra 30% though.
Anyhow, the advantages are not only a quicker set-up, but also:
- less intermodulation distortion (every power amp only processes a limited band of signal)
- much more power headroom
- Distortion due to overdrive (caused by bass tones) will not destroy your tweeter due to higher harmonics
- better impulse response because amps are driving speakers directly
- better defined functionality of cross-over
- All drivers use their full efficiency. No "spilling" of amplifier power into resistors.
So far my sales pitch for active systems.
I tried and built passive systems in the past. In fact, my next project is a pair of Scanspeak A4-like monitors based on Troels Gravesen's design (with 970000 tweeter), which will have normal passive crossover. That pair will serve in the living room.
(as opposed to my Audio-room, where my active speakers are... )Two-way speakers are quite easy to get right, three- or more-way systems are quite a fuss. Also the efficiency issue restricts driver choices etc. My previous system made me go active, because I just couldn't get it right. Part of the problem was that the woofer had a slightly higher sensitivity than the midrange.
It didn't sound bad, but compared to good factory systems it just wasn't there. Switching to active showed potential in the first 20 minutes and it hadn't let me down since.
Some hints of the sound of my new system:
For starters, absolutely dry bass. Active system with closed box loading is a good combination. I discovered a whole new realm of melodies in the bass regions in my CD-collection. No tones are emphasized, very gradual roll-off guarantees a deep fundament.
Speaking in terms of bass, mids and highs sells this system short. Music is just there and flows. No agressiveness, no harsch edges, just music. Drivers and speakers already disappear. There is a kind of naturalness about it.
Stress is absolutely absent. This often results in my girlfriend coming into the room asking to lower the volume, while I don't have the impression that it's that loud. The fact that I don't hear my girlfriend speak while her lips are moving tells me different though.
Although there is a kind of serenity to the sound, it is by no means dull. Details are present, not overly exagerated, but just proportionally right. I can sit and listen to music at realistic levels without getting tired at all. In fact, it's an ideal way of relaxing after a day's work.
Although it's not finished yet (I think I'm at 70% from what's possible with this set-up), I'm really happy this far. I'm looking forward to the extra 30% though.
I feel that it's an area without an answer that fits all cases.
IF money were no object, and I could afford 3 X $3-6,000 amplifiers, AND I could build or buy active crossovers with the same quality as the amplifiers, then active would be great. But the number of stages in an active crossover makes designing a really hiqh quality one difficult. Designing and building the active stages alone would be a major project.
A hybrid design might work out nicely, as mentioned above. A bass and a mid/tweet pair of amplifiers might work out, especially as the bass could be something along the lines of a Bryston ST. An RC lowpass on the woofer amp input, and an RC highpass on the tweeter amplifer would get you past the pesky, large, lowloss woofer inductor and the expensive series mid HP capacitor; with the low values, exotics become affordable.
And the cost of one really good amplifier, even used, would more than pay for design and measuring tools, which you really should have in either case.
IF money were no object, and I could afford 3 X $3-6,000 amplifiers, AND I could build or buy active crossovers with the same quality as the amplifiers, then active would be great. But the number of stages in an active crossover makes designing a really hiqh quality one difficult. Designing and building the active stages alone would be a major project.
A hybrid design might work out nicely, as mentioned above. A bass and a mid/tweet pair of amplifiers might work out, especially as the bass could be something along the lines of a Bryston ST. An RC lowpass on the woofer amp input, and an RC highpass on the tweeter amplifer would get you past the pesky, large, lowloss woofer inductor and the expensive series mid HP capacitor; with the low values, exotics become affordable.
And the cost of one really good amplifier, even used, would more than pay for design and measuring tools, which you really should have in either case.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.