22 replies to this topic

[SimpleHunk]

What is the advantage of running active?

for example

source -> active xover -> amp (100w to high , 100w to mid) -> spk (high to high , mid to mid )

OR

source -> amp ( 200w to spk ) -> passive xover -> spk

Given that the passive xover comes with speaker and of good quality and the tweeter can adjust +3db,0,-3db, what is the main point or advantage of using a active xover?

Please :idea: me. Many thanks.

[>WAYCON<]

lol, well that is one of those debates that never gets resolved. If you do a search then you will see that this very issue has been discussed (heatedly occaisionally) many times before.

Proponants of the active approach like the fact that they can adjust every single speaker using gain and eq etc Particularily of note is the fact the the owner can determine the crossover points and the slope, allowing him greater flexibility in his tuning and speaker placement.
Proponants of the passive approach figure that speaker manufacturers know what they are doing, and an eq can be added earlier for extra flexibility in tuning.

Really depends what you are in the mood for!!! Active is obviously a fair amount more expensive than passaive (allthings being even) and alot more work in terms of tuning, setting Xover points etc. Most guys on this forum will say that they will get better SQ out of their active system than they did running passively. And that reccomendation is one which is always thrown up: "Run it passively and then if you could be stuffed, run it actively. Then you decide which setup suits your car environment"

While that may sound silly, in terms of the amount of money spent which may be "Wasted" be eventually deciding to run passive, most of the good quality active xovers and the like hold their resale value pretty well (and there are always people on here who are willing to buy one so that they can have a go!!!)
But like I said, depends what you want to do.
Do a search and see if that helps you out abit too.
~Steve

[SimpleHunk]

Thank you Steve for your input.

Since SQ is the aim, i thought may be too many component going between the signal source and the amp might actually create more noise, etc etc :?: :?: downgrade the quality of the signal, thus SQ? Or so little downgrade that I cannot hear it anyway ?

I do agree active xover are pretty hard to find, esp where i live, but I have already "wasted" or "invested" the capital on it, , I have a Nak, a Coustic and a MTX xover.

I get your point of setting the xover point, but most likely we have to set according to the spk recommendation, if not distortion will destroy it so there is a limit to how we can set it ..... if that is the case then the last thing you can set is just the gain.

I might just give it a shot later ..... but the forever adjustment of frequency, gain etc etc can make the car stay more than run .... hehehehehe.

Anyway, thanks and i will do a search.

Adrian

[shiny_car]

SimpleHunk said:

Given that the passive xover comes with speaker and of good quality and the tweeter can adjust +3db,0,-3db, what is the main point or advantage of using a active xover?

what splits do you have? high-end stuff like dynaudio, boston pro, focal utopia, etc, have high-end passive xovers as mentioned, so no really good point going active.

for me, i have mixed and matched brands of drivers in my front stage (dynaudio + morel), so going active suits this, otherwise i'd need a custom passive xover.

but when i simply ran the dyn 2-way splits, i happily relied on the passive xover.

things may sound 'differen't, ever-so-slightly, but i doubt any will sound 'bad' or obviously 'better'.

[>WAYCON<]

lol, yeah what shiney said!
I am planning on running active, but like shiny have mis-matched componants in my set up, so the ability to set the crossover points is essential (ID-HLCD with Dyns) to it sounding any good!

But yeah, if you are just planning on running the one system (like the 3way dyns) then the difference an active xover would make I wouldn't image would outweigh the cost!

As for there being more stuff between the initial signal and the speakers, well I wouldn't worry too much about that with your quality gear. Of course if you have a dodgy sanyo xover though, then I am sure that will degrade the over all SQ of the system.

Anyways, good luck with the search and keep us posted on your system buildup
~Steve

[SimpleHunk]

Thank you again for all the input.

I have 2 sets of Macrom, one is the EXT 6.0 and the other is the one actually made by Morel (model number forgot), both sound v nice ... wanna to get Dynaudio, savingggggg now ... hehee ... but a set of Boston Pro 6.5(3) is sitting on my desk too, mum is holding an axe at me already ....

Steve - thanks with the word "quality gear". i m flattered ... :hehe:

I think i will stick with the entire set of speaker at this moment, as I m not good enough to mix and match yet.

Thanks again Mr Moderator and Steve.

I will have loads of question mark coming up and pls bear with me !!!

Adrian

[@nThOnY]

Macrom? I have a pair of ext 6.0 and a syntech 4 ch amp too. Suprised to know that there are others who own this gear in Australia. They are very solid in my opinion.

[Winno]

Quote

With an active crossover, the amplifier is connected directly to the driver, and the only thing between them is the loudspeaker cable. The amplifier presents the maximum damping factor at all times, regardless of frequency, and is not affected by the crossover network, since that is also active, and located before the power amp.

The loudspeaker driver now has the maximum control that the amplifier can provide, across the entire frequency range - not just the crossover network's pass band. The difference in damping is quite obvious, and although some (very well behaved) drivers will show little improvement, the vast majority will be much better controlled, and this will show in an impulse measurement. Not at all uncommonly, it will also show up on a swept sinewave frequency response measurement as well, with the amplitude of peaks and dips generally reduced (albeit marginally in most cases).

Well apart from the other advantages of an active system, this is perhaps one of the most compelling reasons to use an active system rather than passive. Not only is it possible to achieve the maximum damping, but if it is determined that a particluar driver is best suited to some defined impedance, this can be provided by the amplifier, and will be stable across the frequency range. In some cases, just a series resistor will be sufficient, and even though there will be some power loss, if it makes the driver behave the way it should, then any small power loss is a small price to pay.

In short, there is simply no comparison between the two systems. A passive XO will always add (usually) undesirable impedance to that seen by the driver(s), the impedance is frequency dependent, and ranges from perhaps an ohm or so to almost infinite. The potential for uncontrolled cone movement, intermodulation distortion and loss of performance is so great that it is impossible to determine in advance, but it is all negated in one fell swoop by using a fully active system.



Figure 2.3 - Block Diagram of an Active 2-Way Loudspeaker System
Figure 2.3 shows the essential parts of an active 2-way system. This may be be expanded to 3-way, and used with 3-way speakers, or 2-way speakers and stereo subs. Four-way systems - or more - are easily achieved. In contrast to a passive crossover (whether fully optimised or not), each driver has its own amplifier, and each amp has to reproduce less power, and over a narrower frequency range. This allows each amp to have an easier time with a less complex load, potentially reducing amplifier heating and overload - even at high listening levels. For a complete rundown of the other benefits, see The Benefits of Biamping (Not Quite Magic, But Close).

The important point here is that each driver has its own amplifier - there is nothing in between except for the cable, and amplifier control is maximised. The demands on the cable are also minimised (assuming that you believe this to be a critical component), and cheap speaker leads in an active system will provide far better performance than expensive leads with a passive crossover.

The original context is here:
http://www.sound.westhost.com/biamp-vs-passive.htm

[shiny_car]

the above is interesting; thanks winno. :thumb:

however, and i'm sure you'd agree, there can be a big difference between 'theory' and 'audible' benefit.

if there are audible difference, they may be very small, to the point of not being so much 'beneficial' as 'different'.

what's your personal experience with passive vs active? i know you have previously used active setups with great success. but is passive audibly 'worse'?

[Winno]

For those willing to take the time and pay up for the expence, it could be worth it. In going active, what we are saying is, "I can do better than the manufacturer of my speakers when it comes to cross over set up."

In all round adjustability with a good active network, there is a good chance that you really could get better. Most people aren't prepared to go to these lengths though (and that's not a bad thing at all).

Active may allow the person more tuneability and be able to get more out of their equipment.

But I do understand the arguements for and against.

[SimpleHunk]

Thanks for all the input. I do learn a lot from you guys.

Anthony, have you used the cone thing that is the for tweeter? Does it make a big difference ? If you dont mind please share with me.

How do you find the syntech amp ??

thanks.

[@nThOnY]

SimpleHunk said:

Thanks for all the input. I do learn a lot from you guys.

Anthony, have you used the cone thing that is the for tweeter? Does it make a big difference ? If you dont mind please share with me.

How do you find the syntech amp ??

thanks.

I had my tweeter installed on the A pillar, so cannot really tell you about the little chamber thingy, thought its just for mounting purpose? My Macrom 4 ch syntec amp used to pump 75wrms x 2 for the frontstage and bridged the other 2 ch for the sub. I find that EXT highs are quite smooth, but was never satisfied with the mid bass. Upgraded to a set of Dyns with the MD130 and MW160, even without any tuning, I noticed that the midbass improved a lot and more details in the top end.

The Syntech amp is not a pretty amp, but very solid IMO. The major reason I upgraded to a Xtant X604 back then is because the Syntech could not handle the 17vrms signal voltage from my Xtant P500. Thus was attracted by the amp's features, good look, etc. I am keeping the Macrom for a simple setup for my other car though.

Have you consider about a custom passive x-over ? If designed correctly, can be a very huge step up in SQ from any stock dyns or macrom x-over. It is quite expensive but worth it IMO.

So whats the rest of your system like?

Anthony

[SimpleHunk]

Thank you Anthony.

Sounds like there is no where to go expect Dynaudio ..... savinggggg now.

That little chamber claims to lower the resonant frequency, the lower the better !!!

Pls kindly reference

Macrom tweeter

Rest of my gear ( not system exactly, ) ( all sitting in my room !! )

Nak CD-700, with that 6 disc cd box with Tara-lab wires.
Mcintosh MC431 amplifier or Nak PA2004 ( considering which one to use )
and one Mcintosh MC420
PPI PRO 12 inch * 2
Nak elec xover EC200, EC302 or Coustic 3 way to use.
Macrom EXT 6.0 and a pair of which is manfacture by Morel (SE2.60)

still puzzling on whether to get a HD-X1 or not ... :shock: :?: :?:

Thanks again anthony.....

[bodapa]

Here's my take on the active vs. passive debate: besides the increased number of possible settings when using an active crossover (hence its "tuneability" to suit equipment characteristics) it allows you to use the same components should you, at some point in the future, replace your car with another one. The reason for this is a bit lengthy, so bear with me for a while:

Proponents of (custom) passive crossovers argue that an excellent passive is the one that is tailor made to your car, so standard passive crossovers that come with your component set just wouldn't do if you are full on serious on SQ. The trouble is, the one tailor made to a certain car cannot be used in another car due to differences in interior trim, the interior shape itself, etc.; things that could affect the frequency response of your system. If you change cars, and still want to go passive, then you have to have another set of passives made, which cost money. Going active would eliminate that problem, as when you carry over the components to the new car all you have to do is just readjust the settings to suit the new car interior.

That's why I prefer active, even though the same proponents would say that custom made passive crossovers with the right capacitors, inductor coils and resistors can make the sound more natural than active crossovers. I wouldn't debate about the sonic benefit between the two as my ears are yet to pick up differences between them ceteris paribus but I might try a set of custom made passive sometime in the future. We'll see...

Cheers,

Bon

[@nThOnY]

Yeah, I agree that active would be more logical for car audio application. But when I was first introduced to the beauty of custom passive, I was hooked and knew that is it. I have heard numerous active setups but have found none to my listening preference (no means to offence and also maybe its a little vague since equipment, install, tuning all different). Maybe my choice of cars in the future will be restricted to 4wd since mine is custom designed for a landcruiser, hahahaha. I am really considering an active setup for my other car though.

Hey Adrian, why would you bother with the HX-d1 if you have the cd700 anyway? Do you mean the HX-D2?