Active or passive? For me it is very situation dependent.... I do home and car audio, and I have used both x-over types in each. For low frequency, and narrow bandwidth x-overs I definitely prefer active either analog or digital. But for mid and high frequency I can't find any difference in a properly built passive or an active, at least in sound quality. Also for higher frequencys, even complex designs, the passives are significantly cheaper for me to build.
I have very limited experience with the DSP's as more often than not they are out of my price range. And outside my skillset as far as scratch building. I got out of software and programming back in the pascal era. I HATED programing.
I can build active analog x-overs for a similar price as a midrange (frequency) x-over...
An example in cost difference for me:
A friends car, 2 way front doors, 3 way back deck, and a subwoofer.
The sub and the high pass (low frequency) side of the front and rears was active from the headunit.
To do an active setup he needed 2x 4ch amps and a 2ch (about $150 per 4ch and $120 for the 2) if we bought the xovers we needed about $225, for me to build an analog about $110, most in the pwm power supply...
To do a passive: one 4ch amp ($150) and $175 in components if we buy the inductors, and $105 if we wound our own. That counts bobbins and the wire.
So active $645 to buy it all or $530 to build.
And passive, $325 to buy it all, or $255 to build.
So 1/2 the cost. To go passive. ..
I have very limited experience with the DSP's as more often than not they are out of my price range. And outside my skillset as far as scratch building. I got out of software and programming back in the pascal era. I HATED programing.
I can build active analog x-overs for a similar price as a midrange (frequency) x-over...
An example in cost difference for me:
A friends car, 2 way front doors, 3 way back deck, and a subwoofer.
The sub and the high pass (low frequency) side of the front and rears was active from the headunit.
To do an active setup he needed 2x 4ch amps and a 2ch (about $150 per 4ch and $120 for the 2) if we bought the xovers we needed about $225, for me to build an analog about $110, most in the pwm power supply...
To do a passive: one 4ch amp ($150) and $175 in components if we buy the inductors, and $105 if we wound our own. That counts bobbins and the wire.
So active $645 to buy it all or $530 to build.
And passive, $325 to buy it all, or $255 to build.
So 1/2 the cost. To go passive. ..
On the other hand that is exactly what it sounds like whenever I've compared otherwise identical active and passive speakers.
The bass of the passives always was more 'smeared' and less well defined than coming from its active equivalent.
Yes, there's no way that a series inductor and shunt capacitor between the amp and driver is going to improve the lower frequencies
compared to a direct connection.
Last edited:
Making a passive LP with a simple 2nd order filter and the one
with additional circuit for impedance conditioning is not one
and the same thing and makes things very much different.
In a proper evaluation of active vs. passive, one would have to
to be sure of comparing apples vs.apples. The spl and slope
steepness should be the same in both cases.
Last edited:
Most Class D amplifiers have large output filter inductors and capacitors that are lower quality than those used in decent quality passive speaker xovers, so I don't see that crowing over 'losing' inductors and capacitors in active circuits necessarily applies. This output filtering also compromises their HF damping factor significantly.
Last edited:
I have seen claims that a negative amplifier output impedance to cancel that of the speaker is actually much preferable to a zero ohm output impedance
The truth is that neither is a holy grail that mitigates for active and against passive xovers in any competent design.
There is also the factor that most people arguing for active are incorrectly throwing in environmental eq. which is actually separate from speaker xovering.
Btw, 300db/octave filtering would have significant off axis problems with transient information due to Gibbs response misalignment between drivers at xover.
The truth is that neither is a holy grail that mitigates for active and against passive xovers in any competent design.
There is also the factor that most people arguing for active are incorrectly throwing in environmental eq. which is actually separate from speaker xovering.
Btw, 300db/octave filtering would have significant off axis problems with transient information due to Gibbs response misalignment between drivers at xover.
Last edited:
I have seen claims that a negative amplifier output impedance to cancel that of the speaker is actually much preferable to a zero ohm output impedance
The truth is that neither is a holy grail that mitigates for active and against passive xovers in any competent design.
There is also the factor that most people arguing for active are incorrectly throwing in environmental eq. which is actually separate from speaker xovering.
Btw, 300db/octave filtering would have significant off axis problems with transient information due to Gibbs response misalignment between drivers at xover.
Can you please explain what Gibbs response misalignment is? Unfortunately never heard of it.
That's an astute observation. Potentially irrational decision making in the audiophile marketplace? Anti-digital thinking? YMMV.
I've found that the better the active crossover build quality, the better the sound--within strict upper limits, of course, i.e., when the sound quality improvements become inaudible to mere mortals, which I find is encountered extremely soon after upgrading component quality very modestly. Op amps, DACs and ADCs can still get too cheap, and inexpensive electrolytic caps in the signal path aren't conducive to the best sound reproduction quality. (No manufacturer's names here, please.)
Last edited:
Yes, but the real cost is in the amps. Otherwise you are correct. For the price of a large air coil, you can build a top of the line active crossover.
Last edited:
Thanks for reminding me that I am not the only junkie in town, although I might be the worst
Hello,I am guilty, I have more than a couple amplifiers on the shelf.
What I do not have is a single end active crossover; you know the type with RCA connections. I have a Parasound six channel amplifier (with RCA inputs) that is begging to be tried tri-amp style.
Who makes and where do I get a single ended 3-way stereo active crossover?
Thanks
DT
Last edited:
I knew I shouldn't, but temptation got the best of me. I did a quick tally of the working amps I have. It includes all of them, plate amps, power amps, integrated amps and receivers.
27
I'm not sure 'addict' or '-holic' is a strong enough word. I'm going with junkie like vacuphile.
Oops off topic, sorry.
27
I'm not sure 'addict' or '-holic' is a strong enough word. I'm going with junkie like vacuphile.
Oops off topic, sorry.
Either you build yourself, like this set I recently finished and now is in the testing phase.
Or you buy two MiniDSP's for I think 100 USD each, and you are all set and done. You need the MiniDSP´s anyways to establish xover points, slopes and what have you before building an analog homologue.
The benefits of an analog filter over a MiniDSP are better distortion, lower noise, better gain structure and no latency, but for playing music, the MiniDSP is more than good enough.
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.