107 replies to this topic

[hilux08]

The car belongs to one of the better audio stores here on the Sunshine Coast.

[mad89]

hilux08, on Jan 21 2010, 12:59 PM, said:

Well I did ask him whether the set was running active and he said yes, using the focal crossblock??

I dont know much about the Be Crossblock, but as far as i do know, its only bi-ampable at best?

So he is possibly running semi-active, with id say the midbass active and the midrange and tweeter through the crossover?

This is just speculation, but regardless, doesnt sound like he knows much about the system if hes "running active" AND "using the Focal Crossblock"?

Unless of course, im wrong in my assumptions lol

[muzzy66]

As far as I understand it, a passive network is one which divides the signal after amplification. The amplifier essentially only needs to power the crossover, which then distributes power to each driver (hence why a passive system can be run with a singple amplifier).

An active network operates before amplification. The crossover takes the signal from the orignial source, splits it up, and then sends each sub-signal to an amplifier. Each amplifier then feeds power directly into a speaker (hence why multiple amplifier channels are needed in an active system).

As I understand it, the crossblock operates after amplification. The amplifier feeds power to the crossblock, which then distributes to each speaker. Despite it's extensive adjustability, I'd still suggest that it's a passive network based on the above definition.

A mighty impressive passive for sure, but a passive none the less!

Edited by muzzy66, 21 January 2010 - 01:30 PM.

[Fury♫]

Pete: There's no reason why you cant run multiple amp channels into passive crossovers (bi-amp, tri-amp, etc...) .
You would just need to split the signal before the amps.

Lots of home speakers offer this, hence why they have "bridging plates" attached to speaker terminals on the rear.
I don't see why focal wouldn't do this with their expensive crossover.

[~thematt~]

Passive = crossover that gets its 'power' from the speaker line

Active = crossover that gets its 'power' from a dedicated 12V power line.

[muzzy66]

fury, on Jan 21 2010, 03:33 PM, said:

Pete: There's no reason why you cant run multiple amp channels into passive crossovers (bi-amp, tri-amp, etc...) .
You would just need to split the signal before the amps.

Lots of home speakers offer this, hence why they have "bridging plates" attached to speaker terminals on the rear.
I don't see why focal wouldn't do this with their expensive crossover.

Yes, I know you can run mulitiple amp channels on a passive system, my point is simply that you don't have to. In a passive system, you could run 20 different drivers all with different crossover settings, using a single amplifier channel. It wouldn't be pretty...but it could be done.

With an active processor however you really can't - if you want to run 20 drivers all with different crossover settings, then you need 20 channels of amplification. Only way you can get away with less channels is if half the drivers are using the same settings, in which case you can run the signal straight from the amp to multiple drivers by wiring in parallel/series. For all intents and purposes though, you need a dedicated channel of amplification for each driver in order to make full use of an active crossover.

This is what i was trying to say

[268669♫]

and you still took 2 full paragraphs to do it. lol. just ribbing mate.

This is a very informative thread. maybe it should be stickied, tutorialed?

Ant

[muzzy66]

268669, on Jan 21 2010, 04:36 PM, said:

and you still took 2 full paragraphs to do it. lol. just ribbing mate.

Hey, I have a reputation to uphold!

You don't get the title of "Mr Essay" by writing single paragraph responses

[fuddbutter]

man after that im questioning what a crossover is and if it lives in this space time continuum...

[muzzy66]

Meow?

Edited by muzzy66, 22 January 2010 - 12:07 AM.

[Pulse-R]

back to the original topic - I prefer the supremo or Air circ. - different sound, choose the one which suits tonally to the mid.

[simplesq]

Morel Supremo, why, for detail & flexibility. Furthermore, as far as I know, no company has invested more time in tweeter development than Morel. IMHO if there was a better tweeter out there I'de have it...

[jas]

simplesq, on Jan 24 2010, 12:53 PM, said:

Morel Supremo, why, for detail & flexibility. Furthermore, as far as I know, no company has invested more time in tweeter development than Morel. IMHO if there was a better tweeter out there I'de have it...

scanspeak

[sean]

agree! ^ Air-circ all the way

[~thematt~]

simplesq, on Jan 24 2010, 09:53 AM, said:

Furthermore, as far as I know, no company has invested more time in tweeter development than Morel....

I'd seriously doubt that, and if thats true, then they're obviously doing something wrong..... with all that 'time' and 'effort' invested, and the best they can do is the Supremo? Heh.