Finally ran all the wire to run active today ( can see a serious advantage to amp under the front seat now). Still the response kelvar splits, using the DEX-P1R's active xover. Haven't setup time alignment yet.
Sounds clearer in some places, but wasn't really a huge shift as i was expecting. Surprisingly the bass part of the midbass changed a lot, I think the damping of the passive xover must have been hurting it. Trebel seems less harsh than before, level might be down though compared to passive.
Haven't really got into it with the EQ either, still missing bass guitar something badly, which i think is probably the door's problem.
0
Went 2 way active
Started by Immo_G, Feb 23 2005 10:09 PM
18 replies to this topic
#2
-
- Members
- 112 posts
25 - 250w RMS
Posted 24 February 2005 - 01:09 PM
Immo_G said:
Finally ran all the wire to run active today ( can see a serious advantage to amp under the front seat now). Still the response kelvar splits, using the DEX-P1R's active xover. Haven't setup time alignment yet.
Sounds clearer in some places, but wasn't really a huge shift as i was expecting. Surprisingly the bass part of the midbass changed a lot, I think the damping of the passive xover must have been hurting it. Trebel seems less harsh than before, level might be down though compared to passive.
Haven't really got into it with the EQ either, still missing bass guitar something badly, which i think is probably the door's problem.
Sounds clearer in some places, but wasn't really a huge shift as i was expecting. Surprisingly the bass part of the midbass changed a lot, I think the damping of the passive xover must have been hurting it. Trebel seems less harsh than before, level might be down though compared to passive.
Haven't really got into it with the EQ either, still missing bass guitar something badly, which i think is probably the door's problem.
ALLELU'IA AT LAST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ACTIVE ACTIVE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
#3
-
- Members
- 226 posts
25 - 250w RMS
- State:VIC
Posted 26 February 2005 - 11:49 AM
can i ask...what does "active" mean? and what exactly does it do to improve sound quality?and how do u wire up ur speakers active?
#4
-
- Members
- 3,564 posts
Heaps G
- Gender:Male
- Location:Canberra
- State:ACT
Posted 26 February 2005 - 12:01 PM
each speaker gets it's own channel/power.
so to run a set of 2 way splits you would need 1 4 channel amp.
does away with the passive xover.
so to run a set of 2 way splits you would need 1 4 channel amp.
does away with the passive xover.
Team/WWJD
There gotta be more to life then chasing that every temporary high
2005 - 2nd Aus Finals Street B
2006 - Aus Finals Street B champion
2009 - Comeback time.
#5
-
- Members
- 2,639 posts
NSW Amateur Street Champion '05
- State:NSW
Posted 26 February 2005 - 12:02 PM
Well...
Active means each speaker has it's own channel, Passive means multiple speakers are run off one channel... i think.
An example is 6.5-inch/1-inch splits - using a passive setup, you install crossovers. One channel connects to the crossover, then the two speakers receive a separate high-passed/low-passed signal. Thus, one channel for the front left, one channel for the front right, thus a two channel amp and four speakers.
In an active setup, the tweeter and woofer are directly connected to their own discreet channel on an amplifier. Thus, a four-channel amp would be required.
The advantage of active is greater control using the amplifier(s) - it is easier to fine-tune the setup. The disadvantage is that the effort in achieving this is greater than installing crossovers.
If you looked at a ratio of Time Spent:Results, Passive wins in the short term, but the longer you spend fine tuning it, Active comes out on top.
Or at least that's what I'm lead to believe
Active means each speaker has it's own channel, Passive means multiple speakers are run off one channel... i think.
An example is 6.5-inch/1-inch splits - using a passive setup, you install crossovers. One channel connects to the crossover, then the two speakers receive a separate high-passed/low-passed signal. Thus, one channel for the front left, one channel for the front right, thus a two channel amp and four speakers.
In an active setup, the tweeter and woofer are directly connected to their own discreet channel on an amplifier. Thus, a four-channel amp would be required.
The advantage of active is greater control using the amplifier(s) - it is easier to fine-tune the setup. The disadvantage is that the effort in achieving this is greater than installing crossovers.
If you looked at a ratio of Time Spent:Results, Passive wins in the short term, but the longer you spend fine tuning it, Active comes out on top.
Or at least that's what I'm lead to believe
Rainbow Audio, front to back.
#6
-
- Members
- 226 posts
25 - 250w RMS
- State:VIC
Posted 26 February 2005 - 12:47 PM
oh now i understand, thanx guys for the quick lesson.
#7
-
- Members
- 169 posts
25 - 250w RMS
- State:Other
Posted 27 February 2005 - 11:37 PM
Done a bit of tweaking, quite happy with it now. Whole system seems clearer, trebel is definetly different. Probably need to RTA the whole thing.
#8
-
- Members
- 1,374 posts
i once was
- Location:inner space
- State:NSW
Posted 27 February 2005 - 11:43 PM
stazed said:
Well...
Active means each speaker has it's own channel, Passive means multiple speakers are run off one channel... i think.
An example is 6.5-inch/1-inch splits - using a passive setup, you install crossovers. One channel connects to the crossover, then the two speakers receive a separate high-passed/low-passed signal. Thus, one channel for the front left, one channel for the front right, thus a two channel amp and four speakers.
In an active setup, the tweeter and woofer are directly connected to their own discreet channel on an amplifier. Thus, a four-channel amp would be required.
The advantage of active is greater control using the amplifier(s) - it is easier to fine-tune the setup. The disadvantage is that the effort in achieving this is greater than installing crossovers.
If you looked at a ratio of Time Spent:Results, Passive wins in the short term, but the longer you spend fine tuning it, Active comes out on top.
Or at least that's what I'm lead to believe
Active means each speaker has it's own channel, Passive means multiple speakers are run off one channel... i think.
An example is 6.5-inch/1-inch splits - using a passive setup, you install crossovers. One channel connects to the crossover, then the two speakers receive a separate high-passed/low-passed signal. Thus, one channel for the front left, one channel for the front right, thus a two channel amp and four speakers.
In an active setup, the tweeter and woofer are directly connected to their own discreet channel on an amplifier. Thus, a four-channel amp would be required.
The advantage of active is greater control using the amplifier(s) - it is easier to fine-tune the setup. The disadvantage is that the effort in achieving this is greater than installing crossovers.
If you looked at a ratio of Time Spent:Results, Passive wins in the short term, but the longer you spend fine tuning it, Active comes out on top.
Or at least that's what I'm lead to believe
#9
-
- Members
- 112 posts
25 - 250w RMS
Posted 28 February 2005 - 12:07 AM
mack202 said:
hmm i thought that was called bi-amping.
Correct but since he would have a dedicated amp for his bass you may as well call it active.
THE BEST APROACH.
#10
-
- Members
- 10,772 posts
Needs to Harden the f*** up!
- Gender:Male
- State:VIC
Posted 28 February 2005 - 12:12 AM
stazed said:
If you looked at a ratio of Time Spent:Results, Passive wins in the short term, but the longer you spend fine tuning it, Active comes out on top.
Or at least that's what I'm lead to believe
Or at least that's what I'm lead to believe
i spent 3 months every night tweeking my active setup till i got it where i wanted it.
then i chucked the passive's on and gave it twice the power and it sounded heaps better hahaha
active is not easy to do. the passives have been designed by ppl who know xovers and how to get the most out of them.
no way in the world i would reccomend going out and throwing a grand or 2 at some speakers only to not use the passive's that came with it.
i personly will be going active with my next setup as im using a home audio tweeter and car audio midbass.
same as the last setup was 2 different brands so it was better to go active ( i put the passived on when i change to the original tweeter for the setup)
unless you are willing to spend the time and have the knowlage i wouldent reccomend it. but if you really want to then go ahead. it's fun
QUOTE (RMA @ Feb 6 2010, 01:22 AM) My only regrets are:
Selling Fudd an amp (for a fraction of the real price) that had been returned by Autobarn Geelong which had been incorrectly used by AB Geelong and turned out to be faulty when Fudd started using it.
Whilst he was given a new amp after it could not be fixed, he never acknowledged any of the assistance given and bitches to this day about it.
Selling Fudd an amp (for a fraction of the real price) that had been returned by Autobarn Geelong which had been incorrectly used by AB Geelong and turned out to be faulty when Fudd started using it.
Whilst he was given a new amp after it could not be fixed, he never acknowledged any of the assistance given and bitches to this day about it.
www.fuddbutter.com
http://gallery.fuddbutter.com/zen/
MEASQ(CAASQ) Aust Champion 2005
MEASQ(CAASQ) Aust 2nd Place 2006
MEASQ(CAASQ) Vic Champion 2005
MEASQ(CAASQ) Vic Champion 2006
#11
-
- Members
- 1,374 posts
i once was
- Location:inner space
- State:NSW
Posted 28 February 2005 - 12:18 AM
Bobby_Digital said:
i spent 3 months every night tweeking my active setup till i got it where i wanted it.
Do you use it to make money gambling? oh thats right you only earn the honest way LOL
#12
-
- Members
- 10,772 posts
Needs to Harden the f*** up!
- Gender:Male
- State:VIC
Posted 28 February 2005 - 01:22 PM
bah!
i spent nearly every night for 3 months...
i spent nearly every night for 3 months...
QUOTE (RMA @ Feb 6 2010, 01:22 AM) My only regrets are:
Selling Fudd an amp (for a fraction of the real price) that had been returned by Autobarn Geelong which had been incorrectly used by AB Geelong and turned out to be faulty when Fudd started using it.
Whilst he was given a new amp after it could not be fixed, he never acknowledged any of the assistance given and bitches to this day about it.
Selling Fudd an amp (for a fraction of the real price) that had been returned by Autobarn Geelong which had been incorrectly used by AB Geelong and turned out to be faulty when Fudd started using it.
Whilst he was given a new amp after it could not be fixed, he never acknowledged any of the assistance given and bitches to this day about it.
www.fuddbutter.com
http://gallery.fuddbutter.com/zen/
MEASQ(CAASQ) Aust Champion 2005
MEASQ(CAASQ) Aust 2nd Place 2006
MEASQ(CAASQ) Vic Champion 2005
MEASQ(CAASQ) Vic Champion 2006
#13
-
- Members
- 205 posts
25 - 250w RMS
- State:WA
Posted 28 February 2005 - 04:26 PM
Ok either I fluked it or have not done it corerectly. I am running my setup actively and it sounds pretty good IMO.
I am using different tweeters to what comes stock with the Polyglass speakers, I am using the old TN46 kevlar tweeter instead of the TN47 titanium tweeter.
Even when I was putting 170WRMS into the passive XO running the TN47, the active setup with the TN46 sounds better.
It only took about half a day to tune and then minor tweaks along the way.
This could be due to the lack of adjustment in the XDP-4000 because it has set steps in the XO etc so I do not really have the option of adjusting it down to the last hz.
Once my XO's have been set, the only thing that I really need to change is channel levels and TA.
Mind you, I have not even touched the EQ, but I am not the biggest believer in them anyway.
I am using different tweeters to what comes stock with the Polyglass speakers, I am using the old TN46 kevlar tweeter instead of the TN47 titanium tweeter.
Even when I was putting 170WRMS into the passive XO running the TN47, the active setup with the TN46 sounds better.
It only took about half a day to tune and then minor tweaks along the way.
This could be due to the lack of adjustment in the XDP-4000 because it has set steps in the XO etc so I do not really have the option of adjusting it down to the last hz.
Once my XO's have been set, the only thing that I really need to change is channel levels and TA.
Mind you, I have not even touched the EQ, but I am not the biggest believer in them anyway.
#14
-
- Members
- 213 posts
25 - 250w RMS
- Gender:Male
- State:NSW
Posted 28 February 2005 - 08:53 PM
mack202 said:
hmm i thought that was called bi-amping.
bi-amping is using 2 channels (bi) to power your woofers and tweeters separately.
active is using the crossovers on the amp only, and not using an external xover
For example, my Z6 xovers allow me to power my midrange and tweeters separately with the signal still going thru the external xover (bi amping)
so my point being bi-amping doesn't necessarily mean you are running active
hope that clears things up
#15
-
- Members
- 1,374 posts
i once was
- Location:inner space
- State:NSW
Posted 28 February 2005 - 09:00 PM
niteflyer said:
active is using the crossovers on the amp only, and not using an external xover
like the woofer needs to be high passed at around 80Hz and lowpassed at roughly 2000Hz.
Are there many amps with this feature?
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
Community Forum Software by IP.Board
Licensed to: Mobile Electronics Australia
