No. It doesn't depend. Claiming you are being scientific and then using an utterly unscientific, unqualified and unsubstantiated statement as the basis for proceeding is an oxymoron. Quod erat demonstrandum. Active loudspeakers certainly can offer many advantages, but you're not doing their case many favours at present.
Last edited:
Hi,
just thought the same 🙄
Calling others stupid and asking for factual responses at the same .... well even stupid guys get that sorted.
With typical active Filters designed after textbook formulas and built from myriads of Transistors -each with its own linear and nonlinear behaviour- cramped into OPAmps, there's imho no reason to believe in an improved end result.
Almost all passive Filters include the required equalizing function for the driver within the filter, while most active filters are textbook Linkwitz, Butterworth or Bessel style and don't fit the driver in 99% of all cases.
Your talk of 8th order filters belongs in just this category of textbook filters that have no affiliation with praxis at all.
You don't even tell if they are are 8th order acoustical response or 8th order electrical resonse 🙄
There are indeed important areas where actives offer advantages over passives.
I assume noboby is in doubt about that and we can discuss the wheres and whys on a factual basis.
As this is a technical forum and we are no politicians, non-sensible opinioning and rubbish talk certainly won't convince people 😀
jauu
Calvin
just thought the same 🙄
Calling others stupid and asking for factual responses at the same .... well even stupid guys get that sorted.
Well, I'm quite certain that most users here won't consider Your love in any way a factual nor scientific statement. 😛
You just shift the components from behind the amp to a position in front of the amp.
With typical active Filters designed after textbook formulas and built from myriads of Transistors -each with its own linear and nonlinear behaviour- cramped into OPAmps, there's imho no reason to believe in an improved end result.
Almost all passive Filters include the required equalizing function for the driver within the filter, while most active filters are textbook Linkwitz, Butterworth or Bessel style and don't fit the driver in 99% of all cases.
Your talk of 8th order filters belongs in just this category of textbook filters that have no affiliation with praxis at all.
You don't even tell if they are are 8th order acoustical response or 8th order electrical resonse 🙄
There are indeed important areas where actives offer advantages over passives.
I assume noboby is in doubt about that and we can discuss the wheres and whys on a factual basis.
As this is a technical forum and we are no politicians, non-sensible opinioning and rubbish talk certainly won't convince people 😀
jauu
Calvin
I spent yesterday trying to get my Minidsp and Mic up and running with REW. Active has two other huge benefits;
Time alignment, no more slanted baffles or weird off set boxes (Wilson puppies)
Driver & Room response. With PEQ to get each driver as flat as possible, and then combined and the in-room response measured, filtered. This is what would have taken a big old passive company months or R&D to get right, and you can now do it on the fly.
Time alignment, no more slanted baffles or weird off set boxes (Wilson puppies)
Driver & Room response. With PEQ to get each driver as flat as possible, and then combined and the in-room response measured, filtered. This is what would have taken a big old passive company months or R&D to get right, and you can now do it on the fly.
Hi,
beeing a IIR filter the MiniDSP behaves exactly like any other analog filter.
The main difference for the user is convenience and comfort and he doesn´t need to know a thing about filter theory and -building.
All else there´s nothing that active analog filters can´t do the same.
Imho a well designed analog filter sounds better ... at least in the case I used the Mini-DSP sounded lame and could have had less noise.
Well after all there are quite primitive (after todays posibilities) codecs and OPAmps involved and 48kHz clocking may be suboptimal also.
I still wished that I could get my hands on a decent IIR-Filter-core (DSP) that clocks each channel separately, lower for the bass and higher for the mid-highs, that may be mated with one´s own choice of DAC, I-Vs and anlogue output stages.
It seems that the multiple clock feature is only available to much costier FIR filter devices.
jauu
Calvin
beeing a IIR filter the MiniDSP behaves exactly like any other analog filter.
The main difference for the user is convenience and comfort and he doesn´t need to know a thing about filter theory and -building.
All else there´s nothing that active analog filters can´t do the same.
Imho a well designed analog filter sounds better ... at least in the case I used the Mini-DSP sounded lame and could have had less noise.
Well after all there are quite primitive (after todays posibilities) codecs and OPAmps involved and 48kHz clocking may be suboptimal also.
I still wished that I could get my hands on a decent IIR-Filter-core (DSP) that clocks each channel separately, lower for the bass and higher for the mid-highs, that may be mated with one´s own choice of DAC, I-Vs and anlogue output stages.
It seems that the multiple clock feature is only available to much costier FIR filter devices.
jauu
Calvin
Personally, I'm rather more ambivalent. In truth, there are some filters that are potentially easier to implement actively, temporarily leaving other considerations aside. Steep filters (e.g. > LR6; filters at low frequencies etc. There's little to stop either of these being done passively, but: in the former you need components with very close tolerances, and lots of them, which is not cheap nor for the inexperienced, while insertion loss also raises its head. In the latter, big components = expensive, especially if, again, insertion loss is to be minimised. Likewise time alignment on a flat baffle. You can do this with passive filters also, though again, it's not for the inexperienced & requires a reasonable number of additional components.
Having said all that, it's easy to overstate the case for active taken of itself. Cheaper? Possibly, but then, you need to double up the number of amplifiers, which will generally cost as much or more than a passive filter would. You also have more wires hanging about. Not everybody wants that, likes it, or is able to do it, even if they had the inclination. Reduced insertion losses? Sure, but you're not going to get significant increases in system efficiency or dynamic range over a well-implemented passive filter since in 99.999% of the cases the tweeter will still need padding down & baffle-step still needs addressing. Nor, as noted above, are the filters themselves immune from their own issues either. Depends on how well engineered they are, what their distortion performance & a host of other factors are like.
Either way, I refute the bald approach apparently advocated here, where, in essence, it appears to be claimed that you can take any passive loudspeaker, junk the crossover & make massive improvements by implementing 8th order filtering actively (it being unstated whether these are electrical or acoustical slopes) at some unspecified frequency. That, quite frankly, is twaddle. Active filtering can be a very useful and effective approach, and potentially have much to offer. Sufficiently so that they don't require over-simplistic exaggeration.
Having said all that, it's easy to overstate the case for active taken of itself. Cheaper? Possibly, but then, you need to double up the number of amplifiers, which will generally cost as much or more than a passive filter would. You also have more wires hanging about. Not everybody wants that, likes it, or is able to do it, even if they had the inclination. Reduced insertion losses? Sure, but you're not going to get significant increases in system efficiency or dynamic range over a well-implemented passive filter since in 99.999% of the cases the tweeter will still need padding down & baffle-step still needs addressing. Nor, as noted above, are the filters themselves immune from their own issues either. Depends on how well engineered they are, what their distortion performance & a host of other factors are like.
Either way, I refute the bald approach apparently advocated here, where, in essence, it appears to be claimed that you can take any passive loudspeaker, junk the crossover & make massive improvements by implementing 8th order filtering actively (it being unstated whether these are electrical or acoustical slopes) at some unspecified frequency. That, quite frankly, is twaddle. Active filtering can be a very useful and effective approach, and potentially have much to offer. Sufficiently so that they don't require over-simplistic exaggeration.
I thought that active crossovers have a number of modest technical performance advantages compared to passive crossover and no disadvantages. So passive crossovers disappeared from loudspeaker markets where this was a significantly weighted parameter. If this is not the case can someone identify an area of technical performance where a passive crossover is superior to a (competent) active one?
A performance unrelated advantage of passive crossovers is that they need only a single power amplifier albeit a more capable one than the equivalent active ones. Are there any other advantages?
A performance unrelated advantage of passive crossovers is that they need only a single power amplifier albeit a more capable one than the equivalent active ones. Are there any other advantages?
What simple fact? Aside from insulting other people, all you've done is point out that 8'th order filters have steeper slopes than 4'th order filters.
Well, Duh!
How does that make active filters better than passive filters, even assuming that steep slopes are desirable as you claim? Is it because active filters work out cheaper than passive filters, or because they're easier to design, or what?
Lets to turn this into religion, please. Excellent loudspeakers can be made both with lowlevel active crossovers and passive high level crossovers, end of story. I fiddle both active and passive crossovers and in my opinion many good passive crossovers are parts of very very good loudspeakers and the best solution for that amount of money. In some cases going active brings benefits (usually at a higher price point as per ATCs active and passive montors). I have a harder time envison where a good active implementation could be improved by going passive.
In high power implemenations where the voice coils sometimes stray far from room temperature, passive crossovers that are tuned to certain temperature or rather Re and Qes runns into trouble.
As regard to price, if one uses fancy passive components, like paper in oil caps, duelund resistors, large coils the the cost reach that both of active crossovers and amps of good qulity
In high power implemenations where the voice coils sometimes stray far from room temperature, passive crossovers that are tuned to certain temperature or rather Re and Qes runns into trouble.
As regard to price, if one uses fancy passive components, like paper in oil caps, duelund resistors, large coils the the cost reach that both of active crossovers and amps of good qulity
Last edited:
Not sure it's mentioned in the thread but filters attenuate out-of-band signal and distortion products. Therefore, the later in the signal chain the filter is introduced, the better the potential for reducing distortion of ALL preceding components.
There is a good paper somewhere showing how driver resonant peaks can still be excited by signal chain distortion, despite steep (active) filters.
One step beyond electrical filters before the drivers, is acoustic filters after the drivers. Examples of these are band-pass chambers in horn speakers. Maybe this is one reason for their popularity?
Best regards,
Mike
There is a good paper somewhere showing how driver resonant peaks can still be excited by signal chain distortion, despite steep (active) filters.
One step beyond electrical filters before the drivers, is acoustic filters after the drivers. Examples of these are band-pass chambers in horn speakers. Maybe this is one reason for their popularity?
Best regards,
Mike
I think you are saying that if the preceding boxes are not competently designed then passive crossovers may have an advantage in helping reduce the consequences of that incompetence. This looks rather similar to arguments for expensive power cables and the like.
Hi,
just thought the same 🙄
Calling others stupid and asking for factual responses at the same .... well even stupid guys get that sorted.
Well, I'm quite certain that most users here won't consider Your love in any way a factual nor scientific statement. 😛
You just shift the components from behind the amp to a position in front of the amp.
With typical active Filters designed after textbook formulas and built from myriads of Transistors -each with its own linear and nonlinear behaviour- cramped into OPAmps, there's imho no reason to believe in an improved end result.
Almost all passive Filters include the required equalizing function for the driver within the filter, while most active filters are textbook Linkwitz, Butterworth or Bessel style and don't fit the driver in 99% of all cases.
Your talk of 8th order filters belongs in just this category of textbook filters that have no affiliation with praxis at all.
You don't even tell if they are are 8th order acoustical response or 8th order electrical resonse 🙄
There are indeed important areas where actives offer advantages over passives.
I assume noboby is in doubt about that and we can discuss the wheres and whys on a factual basis.
As this is a technical forum and we are no politicians, non-sensible opinioning and rubbish talk certainly won't convince people 😀
jauu
Calvin
All those transistors... Measure the THD and noise... Sometimes hardly measurable. Whereas passive filters!?
A passive crossover will introduce far more distortion than an amplifier.
It's seems to me how ignorant so many people are to how bad passives are. For this reason they only exist in Hi Fi, if anything is needed to actually sound good, pro world, it is generally active these days.
Are you saying passive filters introduce harmonic distortion and noise?
Are you labeling any non-linearity as "distortion" or are you again saying passive filter networks introduce distortion?
If the intent is to have a meaningful discussion, you really should try to cut back on blanket statements with no qualification coupled with insults. If your primary objective was to make a subjective statement about the relative intelligence level of anyone who uses or likes passive networks, it probably would have worked better as a tweet, rather than a discussion thread.
Hi,
no, the people aren't ignorant at all, because they know that the end result depends on the implementation of an Xover and the surrounding circumstances.
Active technology for sure has its merits and advantages, if implemented right.
But there are probabely more examples of suboptimal implementations than good ones, OPAmp graveyards emulating 8th order filters to name a prime example 😀
Also regarding cost and effort, passive remains cheaper and easier.
Active technology isn't better per se (in which regard/parameter anyway?), but its possible technical advantages need to be exploited as good as possible.
Crap remains crap, no matter if its passive or active.
Could You name just one single example where a decently designed passive Xover made from decent devices added any notable THD and/or noise?
How much THD is acceptable anyway before it may become recognizable?
Is there a single case in human history where a passive box was reported noisy?
To get it straight, I prefer actives and most pobabely all other participants here too, but we don't ignore the limits and restraints of this technology and we're certainly not dogmatic about it.
jauu
Calvin
no, the people aren't ignorant at all, because they know that the end result depends on the implementation of an Xover and the surrounding circumstances.
Active technology for sure has its merits and advantages, if implemented right.
But there are probabely more examples of suboptimal implementations than good ones, OPAmp graveyards emulating 8th order filters to name a prime example 😀
Also regarding cost and effort, passive remains cheaper and easier.
Active technology isn't better per se (in which regard/parameter anyway?), but its possible technical advantages need to be exploited as good as possible.
Crap remains crap, no matter if its passive or active.
Could You name just one single example where a decently designed passive Xover made from decent devices added any notable THD and/or noise?
How much THD is acceptable anyway before it may become recognizable?
Is there a single case in human history where a passive box was reported noisy?
To get it straight, I prefer actives and most pobabely all other participants here too, but we don't ignore the limits and restraints of this technology and we're certainly not dogmatic about it.
jauu
Calvin
Last edited:
Boscoe, I'm getting the distinct impression that you started this thread to troll. It has all of the hallmarks. Scott raises good points. If you do not intend to backup any of your arguments with substantial data then I suggest that this thread should be shut down.
It's his annual passive crossover bashing thread.
Here's the previous ones for anybody who missed them (and cares):
2011: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/197513-what-do-you-think-passive-crossovers.html
2012: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/221643-active-vrs-passive.html
2013: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/233562-actives.html
Here's the previous ones for anybody who missed them (and cares):
2011: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/197513-what-do-you-think-passive-crossovers.html
2012: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/221643-active-vrs-passive.html
2013: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/233562-actives.html
🙂
Yes, I remember those threads.
There's no doubt this thread is a troll, but I wouldn't shut it down. Let him dig himself into the hole deeper. 🙂
Dave.
Yes, I remember those threads.
There's no doubt this thread is a troll, but I wouldn't shut it down. Let him dig himself into the hole deeper. 🙂
Dave.
Hilarious! At some point he has to outgrow it. Right?
WRT the OT, the diskussion is as old as the hills. There doesn't seem to be a definitive answer.
WRT the OT, the diskussion is as old as the hills. There doesn't seem to be a definitive answer.
Hi everybody,
May the answer could be be "it depends" 😛
and refer to Scott wrintings on this tread !
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.