10 replies to this topic

[Winno]

Especially those who were running their system with passive x-overs then went out, got another amp and now run their system active.

What were the main improvements you noticed (improved dynamics, transparency, tuneability, etc)?
Was it worth it in the end considering the time/money spent?
Did it end up being better than when you were using those high end/audiophile passive networks supplied with your expensive components?

It would be great if I could get comments from people who've had hands on experience with this sort of system.

Those who know me well also know that I'm nuts about doing the most minor/tweaky things to get that last little bit of quality out of the system. My car system is my Hi-Fi system and I listen to it as such. My reference is a $20k home 2 channel stereo system I've owned.
I have the time and gear but still need some convincing that this may improve things before I actually start again.

Thanks,
Winno

[HISPL]

I noticed a big improvement in dynamics and a huge improvement in headroom (however I did switch to more amp power at the same time) I think that transparencey was also greatly improved.
The active crossopver I used was an old Phoenix Gold that used different chips to adjust crossover points (read not easy to tune) the new one is an Audiocontrol DQX which will b much easier to use.
Some people tend to thing you lose a little warmth but my opinion is that this is offset by improvments in other areas.
In any case you could switch to tube amps if you want added warmth.
What I must add is that I switched from a three way set of Focal splits to a two way set of Compression Horns and midbass drivers. I think this made a biger difference than anything.
Vocals seemed to be a hell of a lot more realistic allbeit with a weakish centre image.
(The main problem not switching to a custom dash when going to horns if you have a big centre console)
Hope you can extract something from this!
Sorry for the bit of a rant. :-)

[roughcactus]

I have found that it suits some systems better than others...for example HISPL is using horns, which I have found really do benefit from having an active crossover rather than passive. Most likely because horns to tend to sound better with a very steep x over and it is difficult to build passives with a steep enough slope without running into phasing worries...also insertion loss is more of an issue because of more passive crossover components in the chain.

When I had my Dynaudios though I actualy preferred the sound of them running through the factory passives. My system consisted of Nak TA-25 tuner, 5 disc musicbank changer, PG ZX-450 & 350 amps, Dynaudio system 220 splits and 3 MTX black gold 10's.
The ZX-450 was running the front stage fully active using the crossovers built into the amp. Dynamics were improved, tunability was also a bit better as you would expect...but there was something I just couldn't put my finger on that didn't sound 'right', so I switched back to the Dyn crossover and all was well again.

In my opinion a good passive can be just as good in some respects as an active system..after all there is good and bad in everything. If you have some gear floating around try it for yourself...I guess it depends on how well the passive is manufactured

just my .02cents worth

[Winno]

I'll also be using Phoenix ZX amps and x-overs (2 ZX-475Ti's), a Clarion DRX-9675z (or HX-D2), Infinity Perfect 10VQ subs (2), and for the time being, Perfect 6.1 Infinity components.

Anyway, this is good. I need to hear this...please keep the comments coming.

Cheers.

[honour77]

running active? Well, going straight from passive to active, with no tweaking and tokem x-over points with no eq etc, chances are the passive setup will sound better. But if you're prepared to spend a little time and tune the thing up, i would say you could probably make it a fair bit audibly better.

With me it was pretty much like that. Theres just no going back to passive for me now.

But on my experience i would say that to really get the best of out running active, you should have independent time alignment on each channel, and an EQ(a 1/3 octave 30 band is best, but even a 5 band parametric can come close if you use it right) along with the required active crossover.

With enough EQ bands, and hopefully some time alignment, you'd be surprised how good the system can sound running active. If you dont have enough hardware however, you should just stick to passive. Because if all you have is an active crossover, having flexibility on just your crossover points, on its own, is not a good reason enough to run active(doesnt justify the additional cost of amplification/trouble)

[HISPL]

Yes I was running very steep slopes with the Horns.
Taking the cascade effect into account the x-over slope was 30db per octave [18 on the Phoenix Gold and 12 on the Clarion Processor that matched my HU both of which are for sale + HU :-)]

Actually here is a question for the Audiophile gurus,
Is the Crossover that is built into the Pioneer DEH-1P (New reference model with the big rotary knob and OEL display on the far right hand side of the unit)
defeatable?

I was told by Pioneer that it was switchable non-fading which leads me to blelieve that it is but I was told to get one and make sure this is true first as the guy @ Pioneer was yet to put one into action that was a production run model and he wasn't sure.

I want to run an EPIC 150 and it doesn't work in line with a crossover b4 it.
(It is a spatial restoration device that works on the harmonics of a full range signal to improve detail in sub bass areas of music)

Help on this one would b great!

[roughcactus]

HISPL,

You may want to head over to the Carsound & Performance Forums and ask there a few of the guys over there use them...

[shiny_car]

i now run an active 3-way front stage. for me, the greatest advantage is mixing and matching drivers. my door woofers and mids are dynaudio (MW160+MD140/2) whilst my tweets are morel supremo.

it's been a huge benefit to be able to tailor the gains for 'perfect' spectral balance. custom xover settings is of course a bonus too. i may have lost a little midbass doof though, dropping power from my former passive setup and now active; but my relatively higher xover setting for the woofer may contribute there.

overall, suits my needs and the results have been very favourable, with more fine tuning to come.

[SkinnyGuy]

something that I don't think that has been mentioned is that active filtering can have a much sharper rolloff without any hassle.... for example you may have a 24dB per octave rolloff with active filtering, whereas with passive, no manufacturer makes their splits with 24dB per octave crossovers as they are much too complex to make.... normally passive filtering will be 12dB or 6dB per octave...

[Winno]

Yes the ZX amps have 24db x-overs and are reputed to be some of the best ones built into amps.

I want to keep the system pretty simple and so I'll end up using the 3 band parametric in my current head unit (or the 5 bands in the HX-D2).

My main issue with passive networks is relative lack of dynamics compared to that experienced by some people running active systems. I realise that the way passives work has alot to do with this.

My serious listening is done at 12 volts (car engine off) and my amps are only rated conservatively at 18 watts x 4 (into a 4 ohm system). As you can imagine, Im wanting to make the most of the available power and I don't mind spending the time on the tuning.

[Bassaholic]

The advantage in an active system is in the tuning. This includes the tuning of an EQ which is IMO neccesary in an active system.

The other advantage is due to the fact that the installation locations aren't always ideal. Particularly in the case of large separation between the mid and tweeter, the passive crossover may no longer blend as well.