I've heard good sound quality from both passive and active crossovers.
I like a speaker with a passive crossover because it can be more portable, making it easier to transport, set up, and hook up to different stand-alone amps.
Active seems to require too many wires and connections with separate amplification. Lower cost and reliability of a passive crossover with good component choices are more appealing to me.
Call me a masochist
, but I sometimes enjoy the challenges of creating a good-sounding passive crossover with the problems and limitations encountered along the way.
😉
I like a speaker with a passive crossover because it can be more portable, making it easier to transport, set up, and hook up to different stand-alone amps.
Active seems to require too many wires and connections with separate amplification. Lower cost and reliability of a passive crossover with good component choices are more appealing to me.
Call me a masochist
, but I sometimes enjoy the challenges of creating a good-sounding passive crossover with the problems and limitations encountered along the way. 😉
The notion I'm getting when reading the thread is that "active" is falsely as synonymous for DSP by some and DSP falsely synonymously for "PC".
An active crossover can well be done with analog components and its characteristics are much easier modified than passive cross overs due to the fact that not one component influences many parameters. That's why I have left the passive speaker arena in the early 1980s 😉
Since about 15 years I've diverted from analog to DSP cross overs, namely DEQX. And yes, I concede that AD conversion is an important key to satisfactory results, yet this can be done (or modified) successfully (scillator and ints supply quality are crucial). I'm actually not doing any "on-line" DSP with/through the PC at all, its just too much software hassle...
Anyway, for me it has turned out that the (small) "limitations" or compromises of well done AD-DA conversion of stand alone DSP solutions are far outweighed by their flexibility, optimisation options, speed of change and not least by the resulting sound quality! ...be it miniDSP HD, DEQX, dbx or what have you...
Regards,
Winfried
An active crossover can well be done with analog components and its characteristics are much easier modified than passive cross overs due to the fact that not one component influences many parameters. That's why I have left the passive speaker arena in the early 1980s 😉
Since about 15 years I've diverted from analog to DSP cross overs, namely DEQX. And yes, I concede that AD conversion is an important key to satisfactory results, yet this can be done (or modified) successfully (scillator and ints supply quality are crucial). I'm actually not doing any "on-line" DSP with/through the PC at all, its just too much software hassle...
Anyway, for me it has turned out that the (small) "limitations" or compromises of well done AD-DA conversion of stand alone DSP solutions are far outweighed by their flexibility, optimisation options, speed of change and not least by the resulting sound quality! ...be it miniDSP HD, DEQX, dbx or what have you...
Regards,
Winfried
Last edited:
I have both. Passive is easy to use but difficult for design. Active is better for experiment. Early in the morning, I don t like the feeling of launching an active system, click x3 amplifiers, click dsp or pc, it s like launching a cruise missile from a submarine. Prefer one click.
Well... In my system the DSP-PreAmp switches the active Speakers on and off with a 12V signal. Having said that, many power amps provide this DC signal based switching (example Vincent SP-996), many active speakers feature audio signal based switching.
Greetings,
Winfried
Greetings,
Winfried
I have a pair of passive speakers for my main system. They're driven by a commercial amplifier that handles all the I/O and input switching, including HDMI-related stuff.
While active speakers certainly have their benefits, my setup is very very easy to use. I can have music playing in seconds, controlled by a range of devices. That ease of use, for me, is more important than the last few percentage points of performance.
Chris
While active speakers certainly have their benefits, my setup is very very easy to use. I can have music playing in seconds, controlled by a range of devices. That ease of use, for me, is more important than the last few percentage points of performance.
Chris
It is a philosophical issue as much as technical.
If one has a well developed analogue system introducing a DSP is unthinkable.
If one has a well developed system built around zero nfb amps, preamps and dacs introducing an active cross built around opamps is unthinkable.
In general, if one has a highly evolved system of any kind, converting it to active is far from trivial. Which explains why the vast majority of active systems are severely compromised. Cheap class D, often with shared PS, combined with opamps or mediocre multichannel dacs seem the norm.
If one has a well developed analogue system introducing a DSP is unthinkable.
If one has a well developed system built around zero nfb amps, preamps and dacs introducing an active cross built around opamps is unthinkable.
In general, if one has a highly evolved system of any kind, converting it to active is far from trivial. Which explains why the vast majority of active systems are severely compromised. Cheap class D, often with shared PS, combined with opamps or mediocre multichannel dacs seem the norm.
Here's another thought -
Doing an all active high end multi driver system is extremely expensive when compared to a similar component quality passive setup with just one stereo amp. The pnly way I can see it justified is needing lots of power output and dynamic headroom capability (ie. far field studio monitors, large scale PA, movie theaters), which can really only be done well with active DSP.
When biamping, it would be counter-productive to run a fullrange signal into both the LF and HF sections that only employ passive crossovers. Even though the individual amps aren't being loaded across the entire frequency range, they still have to reproduce the voltage swings of the full range input signal, so there would be no dynamic range benefit as you get with individual active filtering of the line level drive signals.
Doing an all active high end multi driver system is extremely expensive when compared to a similar component quality passive setup with just one stereo amp. The pnly way I can see it justified is needing lots of power output and dynamic headroom capability (ie. far field studio monitors, large scale PA, movie theaters), which can really only be done well with active DSP.
When biamping, it would be counter-productive to run a fullrange signal into both the LF and HF sections that only employ passive crossovers. Even though the individual amps aren't being loaded across the entire frequency range, they still have to reproduce the voltage swings of the full range input signal, so there would be no dynamic range benefit as you get with individual active filtering of the line level drive signals.
Add my vote for passive when i want something easy to use.
Caveats being for a relatively low powered, low dynamic build. And for a 2-way, not more.
If i were an all analog guy, vinyl/tape signal to speaker, and wanting to move past the limitations of a 2-way, I'd do active analog.
If for no other reason than to gain the very clear (to my ears) sonic benefits of multi-amping.
But i've moved to DSP multi-amping, particularly FIR on each driver, for the reasons wgh52 put forward in #22. And i'm into 4-ways, which makes passive or active analog very difficult.
Theoretical purity from passive xovers, or analog line level xovers is great, but how to achieve the best real world results, dominates any hoped for purity, .......by far ime.
I've found DSP raises the probability of excellent results, way too much to look back. If your budget allows, and especially if you situation allow the latency of linear phase FIR, I don't think any DIY'er has a higher probability of achieving truly outstanding results.
But back to topic, yeah, passives rock, for the right horse on the right course.
I will add, against common wisdom, I have real doubts what if anything is gained through minimizing multiple a/d and d/a conversions.
Ironically, I've heard multiple conversions often mimic a more analog-ish sound ...go figure, huh...
Caveats being for a relatively low powered, low dynamic build. And for a 2-way, not more.
If i were an all analog guy, vinyl/tape signal to speaker, and wanting to move past the limitations of a 2-way, I'd do active analog.
If for no other reason than to gain the very clear (to my ears) sonic benefits of multi-amping.
But i've moved to DSP multi-amping, particularly FIR on each driver, for the reasons wgh52 put forward in #22. And i'm into 4-ways, which makes passive or active analog very difficult.
Theoretical purity from passive xovers, or analog line level xovers is great, but how to achieve the best real world results, dominates any hoped for purity, .......by far ime.
I've found DSP raises the probability of excellent results, way too much to look back. If your budget allows, and especially if you situation allow the latency of linear phase FIR, I don't think any DIY'er has a higher probability of achieving truly outstanding results.
But back to topic, yeah, passives rock, for the right horse on the right course.
I will add, against common wisdom, I have real doubts what if anything is gained through minimizing multiple a/d and d/a conversions.
Ironically, I've heard multiple conversions often mimic a more analog-ish sound ...go figure, huh...
The term 'self-contained' does not mean inside the cabinet. It means everything is there for it to work, you don't need extra things.
Cables.
My god I hate cables.
Everywhere there is cables making dusting complicated.
Anything that reduce number and length of cables is a bonus.
Passive speakers and integrates digital amps do that.
Biamping, active crossover, dsp/we, preamp, dac, probably at least one of the five also require the next thing I really hate; external power adaptors. My good it shouldn’t be legal to have these things outside a device.
And my god active systems always look dim.
Tons of small little devices laying around dusting.
Like a messy lab.
The only way I’d ever go active is when I can build a rack of 19” power amps, crossovers, dsp/eq, preamp, all with the same look and feel with a common power supply for the whole rack. So for my studio I may go active. My wife will never accept a 19” rack in our living room.
My god I hate cables.
Everywhere there is cables making dusting complicated.
Anything that reduce number and length of cables is a bonus.
Passive speakers and integrates digital amps do that.
Biamping, active crossover, dsp/we, preamp, dac, probably at least one of the five also require the next thing I really hate; external power adaptors. My good it shouldn’t be legal to have these things outside a device.
And my god active systems always look dim.
Tons of small little devices laying around dusting.
Like a messy lab.
The only way I’d ever go active is when I can build a rack of 19” power amps, crossovers, dsp/eq, preamp, all with the same look and feel with a common power supply for the whole rack. So for my studio I may go active. My wife will never accept a 19” rack in our living room.
Last edited:
I really like the simplicity of passive crossovers compared to an active set-up. They are also fun to design and build.
Rob 🙂
Rob 🙂
I've heard very few active setups that please me as well as passive setups sonically.
Ditto! Makes DIY events, friendly get togethers, and family donations easier. Showing off what I did as opposed to a 'electro-box' is nice too.
Yep, gimme 2 wires!
Call me a masochist
To quote the late JeffB, "Series xovers are for masochists!"
An affliction to which you and I both enjoy, Dave. ;-)
Wolf
I spent 4 decades telling everyone that active was a waste of money, excessively complex, and more trouble than it was worth.
Final frontier about 3.5 years ago and the decision was to go active, lots of headaches and complexity. Six channels of SE hybrid amplification, requiring me to design and build 4 new channels of amplification, line level LR4 XOs (fun to design and build), MiniDSP SHD for system EQ, transformer coupled line stage for my small multitude of analog sources. System runs on balanced cabling between the line stage, MiniDSP, XO and amplifiers. The drivers in my system are efficient, and it's all very quiet.
When it all works properly it's quite a bit better than what I achieved with the same speaker systems with passive XO and a single pair of 20W amplifiers.
100kg speaker systems are not portable and were designed for use with specific amplifiers, so its complete and utter incompatibility with anything else concerns me not at all.
Try persuading me to go back to what I had before. 😀
Final frontier about 3.5 years ago and the decision was to go active, lots of headaches and complexity. Six channels of SE hybrid amplification, requiring me to design and build 4 new channels of amplification, line level LR4 XOs (fun to design and build), MiniDSP SHD for system EQ, transformer coupled line stage for my small multitude of analog sources. System runs on balanced cabling between the line stage, MiniDSP, XO and amplifiers. The drivers in my system are efficient, and it's all very quiet.
When it all works properly it's quite a bit better than what I achieved with the same speaker systems with passive XO and a single pair of 20W amplifiers.
100kg speaker systems are not portable and were designed for use with specific amplifiers, so its complete and utter incompatibility with anything else concerns me not at all.
Try persuading me to go back to what I had before. 😀
DSP-active systems are a very easy and natural choice for me. I am too lazy and dumb to learn to design passive multiway speakers!
Actually it is not a philosophical, but practical choice. I know that much about loudspeaker design, that taking are of different sensitivities and delays by passive xo wll be a really/too heavy task for most diyers.
Basically, dsp/actives are resonable projects only as 3-4 way stereo systems. It is too easy to pick and buy nice 2-way speakers that utilize practically all the potential they have - so I use passives for other channels of multiway sytem. And 2-way active monitors like Adam Audio TnV or JBL LSR30n series or Kali are just fine as well.
Diy actives don't have to be complicated and too difficult for the family to use. Hypex FA units can be attached to the speaker box and wake up automatically when source signal is detected. In AINOs, B&O ICEpower amps have been constantly powered on for 7 years now without problems...
Actually it is not a philosophical, but practical choice. I know that much about loudspeaker design, that taking are of different sensitivities and delays by passive xo wll be a really/too heavy task for most diyers.
Basically, dsp/actives are resonable projects only as 3-4 way stereo systems. It is too easy to pick and buy nice 2-way speakers that utilize practically all the potential they have - so I use passives for other channels of multiway sytem. And 2-way active monitors like Adam Audio TnV or JBL LSR30n series or Kali are just fine as well.
Diy actives don't have to be complicated and too difficult for the family to use. Hypex FA units can be attached to the speaker box and wake up automatically when source signal is detected. In AINOs, B&O ICEpower amps have been constantly powered on for 7 years now without problems...
Hi,
My reasons to choose passive filters over active ones are simply quality of music reproduction. I´ve tried quite a few expensive active filters, analog and dsp in the past, and always in the end preferred a really well-made passive filter.
This is a lot of work to make and can easily be much more expensive than dsp solutions with cheap amps.
While active solutions are of course a feasable way and make a lot of sense especially in complicated multiway systems, for my personal listening pleasure I prefer having a single DAC of very high quality, having an analog source of very high quality, and having just one pair of mono amps of very high quality. I simply couldn´t afford that in multiple numbers...
I do also prefer shallow filters - as shallow as possible, as steep as minimally needed. I also prefer relatively simple WAW systems, as simple as possible, but again of high quality implementation. A simple 2nd order/1st order passive filter (for my black flowers) is shown in the picture - that´s all out, not that simple anymore and not cheap.
But then, all this are my personal choices with which many may disagree. Everyones choice is valid if it provides fun when listening to music.
All the best
Mattes
My reasons to choose passive filters over active ones are simply quality of music reproduction. I´ve tried quite a few expensive active filters, analog and dsp in the past, and always in the end preferred a really well-made passive filter.
This is a lot of work to make and can easily be much more expensive than dsp solutions with cheap amps.
While active solutions are of course a feasable way and make a lot of sense especially in complicated multiway systems, for my personal listening pleasure I prefer having a single DAC of very high quality, having an analog source of very high quality, and having just one pair of mono amps of very high quality. I simply couldn´t afford that in multiple numbers...
I do also prefer shallow filters - as shallow as possible, as steep as minimally needed. I also prefer relatively simple WAW systems, as simple as possible, but again of high quality implementation. A simple 2nd order/1st order passive filter (for my black flowers) is shown in the picture - that´s all out, not that simple anymore and not cheap.
But then, all this are my personal choices with which many may disagree. Everyones choice is valid if it provides fun when listening to music.
All the best
Mattes
Attachments
I surmise if a sota DAC, it will sound this time better with the passive than the Minidsp active....
And yes good film caps in the passives make the difference at the end if one is talking about diminishing returns; at least I found so.😎 (above 9 note in HumbleHomeMadeHifi, below I sometimes prefer electrolythics.)
I beleive I could live with a class D plate amp for the bass where a SET is too much low for transcient demands with big drivers and passive above for the mid and treble, while I dunno if complex to setup a passive high pass with a low passplate amp, I have not try ...yet.
The big plus of DSP is the delay, I do not know if we can make better than active here with passive and the few phase artifacts ? : assymetric XO, inverted tweeters, tilted front bafle, or two cabinets loudspeaker...
Last edited:
I've got what I've got, and the active crossover is definitely better than what I could achieve with air core inductors, and Clarity Caps. The SHD may be the weak link in the chain, but the SHD is actually pretty good. I had analog processors previously - completely recapped BSS Varicurves. The SHD is quieter, more accurate, and more transparent than the Varicurve.
The bass cabinets are 100dB efficient and designed for SE power amplification - the high source impedance taken into account in the Onken cabinet design. I've had them for 15 years and am pretty happy with their performance.
The mids are JBL2440 and 2380 bi-radial horns - about 115dB efficiency.
Highs are handled by Fostex T-825 bi-radial HF horns - about 110dB efficiency.
I found that the high output impedance of the 300B SE amps I use for driving the mids and highs are somewhat of a performance liability - I would get slightly flatter overall frequency response with amplifiers that acted more like an ideal voltage source. This is particularly the case with the 2440/2380 combo and was somewhat improved by using the lower impedance tap on the output transformer - flattened things out by more than 1dB when measured.
Resolution, imaging and stage depth all improved significantly compared to the passive set up, going from the Varicurve to the SHD further improved all of the above and gave me a lot more ability to fine tune to the room and my preferences, it also gave me electrical correction of driver offsets which are a problem in this system since I don't have space or means to align the mid driver to the woofer..
It is complicated and difficult to maintain, when it works perfectly it meets most of my original goals (there always has to be room for further improvement right?) It can't fix all of my mistakes but it does mitigate most of them.. 🙂
When it doesn't work perfectly there is a lot to go wrong.. Interestingly most of the problems I have trace back to things like worn out or defective tubes or other failing components. Understanding how to use a seemingly simple tool like Dirac3 plays a pretty big role too - it's quite possible to end up with terrible sound if you don't know how to use the tools effectively. Endless possibility for mistakes exist in a system this complex.
I'm an old guy with a lot of design experience and have chosen a path that suits me and my goals. It's not for everyone, OTOH I am not going back either.
My biggest remaining problem is likely this room, and that will not change. This house is where I will likely live out the remainder of my life so I have to accept its limitations and make the best of it. In most ways it's the best sounding room I have had bar one. It's also got some pretty bad LF room modes.. LOL
The bass cabinets are 100dB efficient and designed for SE power amplification - the high source impedance taken into account in the Onken cabinet design. I've had them for 15 years and am pretty happy with their performance.
The mids are JBL2440 and 2380 bi-radial horns - about 115dB efficiency.
Highs are handled by Fostex T-825 bi-radial HF horns - about 110dB efficiency.
I found that the high output impedance of the 300B SE amps I use for driving the mids and highs are somewhat of a performance liability - I would get slightly flatter overall frequency response with amplifiers that acted more like an ideal voltage source. This is particularly the case with the 2440/2380 combo and was somewhat improved by using the lower impedance tap on the output transformer - flattened things out by more than 1dB when measured.
Resolution, imaging and stage depth all improved significantly compared to the passive set up, going from the Varicurve to the SHD further improved all of the above and gave me a lot more ability to fine tune to the room and my preferences, it also gave me electrical correction of driver offsets which are a problem in this system since I don't have space or means to align the mid driver to the woofer..
It is complicated and difficult to maintain, when it works perfectly it meets most of my original goals (there always has to be room for further improvement right?) It can't fix all of my mistakes but it does mitigate most of them.. 🙂
When it doesn't work perfectly there is a lot to go wrong.. Interestingly most of the problems I have trace back to things like worn out or defective tubes or other failing components. Understanding how to use a seemingly simple tool like Dirac3 plays a pretty big role too - it's quite possible to end up with terrible sound if you don't know how to use the tools effectively. Endless possibility for mistakes exist in a system this complex.
I'm an old guy with a lot of design experience and have chosen a path that suits me and my goals. It's not for everyone, OTOH I am not going back either.
My biggest remaining problem is likely this room, and that will not change. This house is where I will likely live out the remainder of my life so I have to accept its limitations and make the best of it. In most ways it's the best sounding room I have had bar one. It's also got some pretty bad LF room modes.. LOL