In my opinion there can't be many reasons. Is it about the fun designing it? Lets hear your opinion
Hi,
IMO the main reasons today still are :
- people want to swap the digital process from the speaker to choose their source easilier and avoid an ADC process
- active gears with a low noise floor can be more expensive than the usual basic gears like MiniDSP and the TI basic line diy boards (Sure Electronic).
- people may be in love with their standalone amp and don't want to go for multiple littlier units because the hassle.
As I see it, I'd like to go active but without ADC process, so something a little passive filter but after the dac or before it which means several same DACs... which is also a complexity + cost.
But again the main reason is the digital section which is not as SOTA as some wants and it matters a lot in the final sounding result. Since made well, a passive filter is not so a problem with good caps to the nuances a good source can be able too.
I'm sure active can be better as each driver makes its amp working for it only...
The good thing maybe is to developp active the filter to go faster with the last setups process but I'm sure the development basis are as long thabn passive and it's an intelectual process first made with software and a pen ! Maybe this last meters setups process is less expensive with active because the passive parts cost, while some have many and some also reduce the amp quality with cheap chipamps !
IMO the main reasons today still are :
- people want to swap the digital process from the speaker to choose their source easilier and avoid an ADC process
- active gears with a low noise floor can be more expensive than the usual basic gears like MiniDSP and the TI basic line diy boards (Sure Electronic).
- people may be in love with their standalone amp and don't want to go for multiple littlier units because the hassle.
As I see it, I'd like to go active but without ADC process, so something a little passive filter but after the dac or before it which means several same DACs... which is also a complexity + cost.
But again the main reason is the digital section which is not as SOTA as some wants and it matters a lot in the final sounding result. Since made well, a passive filter is not so a problem with good caps to the nuances a good source can be able too.
I'm sure active can be better as each driver makes its amp working for it only...
The good thing maybe is to developp active the filter to go faster with the last setups process but I'm sure the development basis are as long thabn passive and it's an intelectual process first made with software and a pen ! Maybe this last meters setups process is less expensive with active because the passive parts cost, while some have many and some also reduce the amp quality with cheap chipamps !
Last edited:
I agree with Diyiggy... I am coming from a background of DSP active speakers. In the past 18 months I have designed and built two DSP active systems and a pair of passive speakers. I have seen both sides.
Another big issue with going active is the cost. High quality DSP filters and amps cost a lot of money. If someone already has a nice amp that they are happy with, it is hard to justify paying for price to go active. Most people are not starting a whole A/V HiFi system from scratch, they need their speakers to work within their existing infrastructure.
The passive crossover for a large 3-way speaker can be costly as well, particularly if the lower crossover is below 300 Hz. Nonetheless, it is still less costly than an active solution. A miniDSP 2x4HD and a pair of ICEpower 170 W amps could replace the lower passive crossover, but that option is going to be $400 - $500 for two channels. The lower passive crossover is going to be more like $80 - $150 for two channels.
Having said all that... I am very enthusiastic about active speakers. Especially the Hypex Fusion amps.
Another big issue with going active is the cost. High quality DSP filters and amps cost a lot of money. If someone already has a nice amp that they are happy with, it is hard to justify paying for price to go active. Most people are not starting a whole A/V HiFi system from scratch, they need their speakers to work within their existing infrastructure.
The passive crossover for a large 3-way speaker can be costly as well, particularly if the lower crossover is below 300 Hz. Nonetheless, it is still less costly than an active solution. A miniDSP 2x4HD and a pair of ICEpower 170 W amps could replace the lower passive crossover, but that option is going to be $400 - $500 for two channels. The lower passive crossover is going to be more like $80 - $150 for two channels.
Having said all that... I am very enthusiastic about active speakers. Especially the Hypex Fusion amps.
DSP would allow adjustments on situ and no power loss on high SPL applications like live sound. For DIY prototyping and figuring things out DSP is very easy, fast and cheap. Chinese 2.1 setup with adau1701 DSP costs only few days worth of cigarettes. But the reliability and compatibility with existing systems are main benefits for passive like AllanB points out. Much less complexity. Nobody wants to handle complex issues, except engineers and even they strive for simplicity 🙂
Last edited:
Keeping two stereo power amps energized 14 hours a day is a waste of electricity.
DSP require a smart phone or windows, neither of which I have invested in. I don't approve the actions of Pres **, sole source of smart phones. & Microsoft is a security risk, See the news today. Besides windows requiring $200 in updating every 2 or 3 years. New PC's come from the same sole source as smart phones.
100 people in jail paid for by every unit purchased.
Two analog stereo graphic equalizers is another two boxes powered up 14 hours a day when I'm at home listening to the radio.
Active speakers are designed to blow the internal amp in 8 years. Class D is designed not to be repaired. My ST120 is 51 years old. (With improvements).
Anybody notice the planet is warming? Or maybe the hurricanes, spring cold waves, 1000 year floods every 5 years, droughts? Lack of sea ice in Arctic, cold blasts in Indiana in May? I don't even drive a car anymore. I only air-condition one room, to keep the pianos from molding from the humidity. Keeping one 120w amp operating & one 8 w mixer is a luxury I allow myself. Less watts than TV.
DSP require a smart phone or windows, neither of which I have invested in. I don't approve the actions of Pres **, sole source of smart phones. & Microsoft is a security risk, See the news today. Besides windows requiring $200 in updating every 2 or 3 years. New PC's come from the same sole source as smart phones.
100 people in jail paid for by every unit purchased.
Two analog stereo graphic equalizers is another two boxes powered up 14 hours a day when I'm at home listening to the radio.
Active speakers are designed to blow the internal amp in 8 years. Class D is designed not to be repaired. My ST120 is 51 years old. (With improvements).
Anybody notice the planet is warming? Or maybe the hurricanes, spring cold waves, 1000 year floods every 5 years, droughts? Lack of sea ice in Arctic, cold blasts in Indiana in May? I don't even drive a car anymore. I only air-condition one room, to keep the pianos from molding from the humidity. Keeping one 120w amp operating & one 8 w mixer is a luxury I allow myself. Less watts than TV.
Last edited:
I'm a strong proponent of active crossovers, but that being said there are plenty of loudspeakers where a passive crossover is an excellent solution and an active one does not offer any real benefits. Active systems do have some advantages, but unless the system in question needs them or would benefit from them the overall increased complexity and cost are not often providing you anything over a passive crossover.
One excellent example of this is the 2-way boxed speaker with "easy to work with" impedances and/or higher crossover points. This is your basic DIY loudspeaker, and there really isn't much motivation for breaking out the DSP here.
Another example is someone who wants/needs to implement some kind of surround sound system. If every loudspeaker is a multiway DSP/active loudspeaker, the electronics requirements are really over the top. Loudspeakers with a passive crossover offer some real advantages there, no doubt.
I am sure that there are more examples.
One excellent example of this is the 2-way boxed speaker with "easy to work with" impedances and/or higher crossover points. This is your basic DIY loudspeaker, and there really isn't much motivation for breaking out the DSP here.
Another example is someone who wants/needs to implement some kind of surround sound system. If every loudspeaker is a multiway DSP/active loudspeaker, the electronics requirements are really over the top. Loudspeakers with a passive crossover offer some real advantages there, no doubt.
I am sure that there are more examples.
I know I'll sound old, but active crossovers don't have to be digital! The disadvantage is the cost of multiple power amplifiers, but the crossovers can be much more transparent than the big caps, resistors and inductors needed for passive crossovers.
It's worthwhile reading Sig Linkwitz (RIP) paper on crossovers. You can implement the 4th order XO in active (i.e. opamps) or passive fashion. Sig was a long time contributor to Speaker Builder, Journal of the Audio Engineering Society and a highly regarded RF engineer.
Crossovers
Crossovers
Passive crossovers allow you to swap out amplifiers easily and there's only one "amplifier factor" that changes the whole sound, bass through treble.
If you're analog sourced, yeah - you'll have to deal with someone's A/D converter in your signal path, to use a DSP based active xover. That was once a show stopper for me...after getting a D/A I liked, that being "chopped up" again and reconstructed into a sound I didnt like.
Active analog has been around for a while - I remember working at Olson's ~40 years ago and they sold this Sanyo car stereo with separate amps for the woofer (20W) and tweeter (5W). I'm pretty sure the xover in that was line level active...
Lately, I've thrown the analog source / speaker level xover baby out with the bathwater; I only use digital sources these days with FR speakers. One system has the separate amps / DSP xover built-in to the chip for woofer and tweeter and it's been set and forget in a similar way to your home router. If you can call a 100Hz xover point a "tweeter".
A smart amplifier to me would serve up a web page for such settings, just like a router does. If the smart kids can cook up DD-WRT or PiHole from scratch, I'm sure someone will do it eventually. Then the Windows requirement for amplifier parameter access would go away, by simply logging into your amplifier from any web browser. (as the tube guys all shudder)
If you're analog sourced, yeah - you'll have to deal with someone's A/D converter in your signal path, to use a DSP based active xover. That was once a show stopper for me...after getting a D/A I liked, that being "chopped up" again and reconstructed into a sound I didnt like.
Active analog has been around for a while - I remember working at Olson's ~40 years ago and they sold this Sanyo car stereo with separate amps for the woofer (20W) and tweeter (5W). I'm pretty sure the xover in that was line level active...
Lately, I've thrown the analog source / speaker level xover baby out with the bathwater; I only use digital sources these days with FR speakers. One system has the separate amps / DSP xover built-in to the chip for woofer and tweeter and it's been set and forget in a similar way to your home router. If you can call a 100Hz xover point a "tweeter".
A smart amplifier to me would serve up a web page for such settings, just like a router does. If the smart kids can cook up DD-WRT or PiHole from scratch, I'm sure someone will do it eventually. Then the Windows requirement for amplifier parameter access would go away, by simply logging into your amplifier from any web browser. (as the tube guys all shudder)
Last edited:
Do you means inside the cabinet? That's a bad habit, at least for the DIY people. You don't have to mock commercial speakers that have to hide everything inside a box ( waf anyone??) and do the packaging and distribute it.
We are free to put it in the midway from the amplifier to the speakers, I mean, for those interested in seeking the best!
Well, to me, some applications like surround speakers are not worthy of active crossover or multiple amplifiers, and thus I prefer a network, nice and compact, all inside the box.
I completely understand that there maybe other opinions.
Cheers.
I completely understand that there maybe other opinions.
Cheers.
- It stays analog, no extra ad/da conversion, or none at all if the source is analog (yes i listen to vinyl a lot and that is a big issue).
- Cheaper for smaller power systems if you want high quality sound (good dsp's with good ad/da conversion cost a fortune)
- easier and more reliable once build. Just connect a good amplifier and of you go.
- can be used with any amp you wish, no need to have matching amps for the different frequency bands or manual matching the output of each band to the other. It can also be used with the typical integrated amp 95% of the people have, no need for a seperate amp(s) and preamp device.
- Cheaper for smaller power systems if you want high quality sound (good dsp's with good ad/da conversion cost a fortune)
- easier and more reliable once build. Just connect a good amplifier and of you go.
- can be used with any amp you wish, no need to have matching amps for the different frequency bands or manual matching the output of each band to the other. It can also be used with the typical integrated amp 95% of the people have, no need for a seperate amp(s) and preamp device.
That's a good one Lojzek. When I have seen guts some of the HT packages, like active subwoofers, active speakers, mid price point, its definitely designed to break after warranty expires. It may even have some secret timer programmed inside. 🙂
But seriously...
I have most of my systems in some form of combined active/passive. I have long time ago decided on the ~150 Hz active split of the signal. There is lots of logic behind it, and I am not going to discuss it right here right now. I may write some on my web page later. Anyway, simple active split, then two sets of amplifiers, and two sets of speakers. Obviously, big powerful classAB for woofers, small refined preferably classA for bookshelfs. I am using the word 'bookshelf' here loosely, it can be floorstander, big open baffle, whatever, just dedicated to cover 150Hz and up.
This bookshelf has its own passive crossover.
Yes, all this brings more complexity then one amp one pair of speakers, but on the other hand offers lot more flexibility.
Advantages are many. When I build many bookshelfs, which is fun, I do not need to integrate them in big boxes with woofers, as they only need to cover 150Hz up. Woofers stay in place. Swapping small great sounding bookshelfs is easy and comparing the sound of each is what I like and do often. Preferably with friends over and some beer/vine is involved.
Another advantages are: no need to match efficiencies between the woofers and mids and highs. No need to burn the power in L-pads, and level adjusting resistors. Each section has its own volume to set, offcourse, there is master volume before the active crossover. System can sound loud and dynamic with flea watt power amps in mid/tweeter section, since low wattage amp is liberated from woofer duties. Biamping to me brings more clarity, because intermodulation between low fr signals and higher fr signals is minimized. No matter what is happening in woofer amplifier, it will not pollute mid/tweeter section.
Similarly as comparing sound of various bookshelfs, one can spend plenty of time comparing various classA amps in mid/tweeter section. It can be an obsession, which may not be advantage, but it sure is fun.
That's all I wanted to share, happy listening!
Cheers.
I have most of my systems in some form of combined active/passive. I have long time ago decided on the ~150 Hz active split of the signal. There is lots of logic behind it, and I am not going to discuss it right here right now. I may write some on my web page later. Anyway, simple active split, then two sets of amplifiers, and two sets of speakers. Obviously, big powerful classAB for woofers, small refined preferably classA for bookshelfs. I am using the word 'bookshelf' here loosely, it can be floorstander, big open baffle, whatever, just dedicated to cover 150Hz and up.
This bookshelf has its own passive crossover.
Yes, all this brings more complexity then one amp one pair of speakers, but on the other hand offers lot more flexibility.
Advantages are many. When I build many bookshelfs, which is fun, I do not need to integrate them in big boxes with woofers, as they only need to cover 150Hz up. Woofers stay in place. Swapping small great sounding bookshelfs is easy and comparing the sound of each is what I like and do often. Preferably with friends over and some beer/vine is involved.
Another advantages are: no need to match efficiencies between the woofers and mids and highs. No need to burn the power in L-pads, and level adjusting resistors. Each section has its own volume to set, offcourse, there is master volume before the active crossover. System can sound loud and dynamic with flea watt power amps in mid/tweeter section, since low wattage amp is liberated from woofer duties. Biamping to me brings more clarity, because intermodulation between low fr signals and higher fr signals is minimized. No matter what is happening in woofer amplifier, it will not pollute mid/tweeter section.
Similarly as comparing sound of various bookshelfs, one can spend plenty of time comparing various classA amps in mid/tweeter section. It can be an obsession, which may not be advantage, but it sure is fun.
That's all I wanted to share, happy listening!
Cheers.
I haven’t done much with active, but can certainly appreciate its potential. For me, the last speaker system I ever build will be active; but until then, I enjoy building passive speakers that I can pass along to family and friends when I want to move to the next project. They are much happier accepting a passive speaker system that they can connect with any old receiver they have on hand, as opposed to purchasing their own active crossover, multiple amps, and a preamp.
I don't like additional D to A conversion steps in my signal chain, so I generally prefer passive networks when they're practical to implement. Also, I don't like using steep filter slopes in my speakers, mainly because these tend to sound less "together" if used in the critical midrange between 2 and 6 kHz. I prefer to have some driver overlap with gentler filter slopes, even if that may hurt vertical off axis response, so drivers with wider, smoother response are chosen and, as a whole, sound more spatially correct for me. I usually avoid drivers with sharp breakup modes that require steep filters, unless they're very good in a given frequency range and need sharp filter cutoff.
If I go active, its always with analog circuitry, and usually only used in LF sections (subs and drivers with lower cutoff), where large caps and inductors are required, which can affect SQ due to inductor core material and early core saturation.
The other problem with DSP filtering is latency. There is always a delay with DSP and when it's used on subs or with biamping in conjunction with passive speakers, it sometimes won't integrate properly. I do like FIR filtering and its benefits, but only when the whole signal chain is digital up until the final conversion step going into the amps and only if the active circuitry has very low noise floor - I've owned all sorts of DSP gear and anything under $1000 is not clean enough for me ie. DCX2496, mini dsp, etc. I did try the DBX driverack 360 which did sound pretty good. If I'm listening to analog source, I'd only use passive filtering or analog active without any digital conversion in between, otherwise it would defeat the purpose of the analog source.
If I go active, its always with analog circuitry, and usually only used in LF sections (subs and drivers with lower cutoff), where large caps and inductors are required, which can affect SQ due to inductor core material and early core saturation.
The other problem with DSP filtering is latency. There is always a delay with DSP and when it's used on subs or with biamping in conjunction with passive speakers, it sometimes won't integrate properly. I do like FIR filtering and its benefits, but only when the whole signal chain is digital up until the final conversion step going into the amps and only if the active circuitry has very low noise floor - I've owned all sorts of DSP gear and anything under $1000 is not clean enough for me ie. DCX2496, mini dsp, etc. I did try the DBX driverack 360 which did sound pretty good. If I'm listening to analog source, I'd only use passive filtering or analog active without any digital conversion in between, otherwise it would defeat the purpose of the analog source.
I really like to work with passive crossovers (and i like to believe i know how to do it properly). But losses are large when crossing 800Hz if you want to make it linear (more so for 8 ohm woofers) so it's very sane to use active crossover and separate amp.
I am now working on a hybrid approach for a three way with low crossover point at around 300Hz (dsp or active analog, we'll see) and high crossover point at around 3kHz (passive). I really see no point of using separate amplifier channel just for tweeters. Even complicated passive crossover is cheap when crossover point is at or over 1500Hz.
I am now working on a hybrid approach for a three way with low crossover point at around 300Hz (dsp or active analog, we'll see) and high crossover point at around 3kHz (passive). I really see no point of using separate amplifier channel just for tweeters. Even complicated passive crossover is cheap when crossover point is at or over 1500Hz.