he wasn't putting down car audio. u clearly have completely misunderstood him. that is also obvious to most ppl here.



gg. u reject someone elses 'opinion', attack him personally with ur first post and then try to justify ur behaviour.

sorry maybe I read that wrong ?

have a look around. is the silence deafening u?

i also run passive, but u seem to be the only one to take offense.

get over urself.

an electronic variable pasive filter box with gold plated screws.

Zion, just stirring the pot arn't you

I've only been in car audio for 8 or so months now, so I spose my opinion is going to be fairly newb based...

Passive crossovers are easy to use. For someone who just wants a nice sounding system straight out of the box, you can't go wrong. (like most of us wanted when we first started)
Active crossovers enable for better tuning without having to change capacitors and coils all the time. By simply turning a know or flicking a switch we can change the slopes (6/12/18/24) and the cutoff point. (of course, your units needs to be capable of this...)
Thats not to say that passives don't have this tunability(sp?). Sure, they can't be adjusted with knobs and switches but whats stopping someone from customizing a passive unit?? What if someone did all there tuning with an active, finding the cutoff points and slopes they wanted, then built a passive to mimic that for example?

I agree with others on here that have stated it's a race that will never be won. Both have their advantages and disadvantages, and people prefer one over the other for various reasons.


Personally, I run active LP filter for my sub and an active HP to the mids and tweets. This is done by my headunit. Why? It was there for me to use! I can't change the slope, but I can choose between 3 cutoff points and I'm happy with that. It sounds good to me.
My mids and tweets are then controlled by the passive crossover I got with them. I use it because all i had to do was link the cables to it and select weather I wanted the tweets +3 0 -3 db different from the mids. (I went 0 because the mids and tweets are the same distance apart from the listener)

I'd like to try a fully active setup one day.... one day when I've actually got some money to spend, but atm I'm happy with how my system sounds and CBF'd changing it, not in my current car anyway.

I am fully active in the Integra, however this is equipment dependant. I do prefer active, as it allows for much more tuning and usablity.

In my daily I am bi-amped, passives for front stage. I like passive for the removes the "error factor" to a degree.

hmmmm my stirring has lead me to ponder a real question.
2 different setups~
1>If u have electronic variable crossovers/multipule slopes before the amp.
2>If u have electronic variable crossovers/multipule slopes after the amp.

Where can the performance difference make one better than the other. becauase i think having the variable setup is great until u get it perfect, then all the extra slopes and stuff will never be used.And that leads to a simple and efficient crossover being used whether before or after the amp.

Ok, most of the advantage of "before the amp" is the increase in headroom. Very simple. Let's say two sine waves, one at 150hz peaking at 3 volts and the other at 2khz at 1.4 volts are playing at once. There's a good chance that both wave peak and trough voltages are going to sum, causing +/- 4.4 volt swings at certain points. This then means the amplifier has to use more of it's available power to amplify the extra voltage, only to have it thrown away by a crossover AFTER the amp anyway. (P.S I don't think you can use an electronic Xover after the amp. We call this type of Xover "passive", and passives are always so big because they have to work with much higher levels of power than active ones do.)

This actually happens a lot in real music, across the entire spectrum. Splitting the two signals before the amp means that this summing can only happen within the set frequency range for each amp channel. If I've been unclear I hope someone else can better say what I'm trying to.

That's right Zion, once you know what the slopes and frequencies need to be, it is better to have a simpler solution. before or after the amp depends on what's best for you, and what you want to achieve. by having a filter after the amp, you lose some power, but have better control over non-linearities. before the amp means smaller values can be used due to the higher impedances, and therefore less costly.
IMO BiAmp, or TriAmp is the better option, but active also has its place where flexibility of configuration is required. As Cyberpunky said, once you get the installation right, and the filter selection right, then there's no advantage to running active over passive. Indeed the added cost of a custom passive crossover is about the same as a good active setup.

btw, I found out the 500/1 is good up to 500Hz .

Ah yes, good answer, to a point. but you're forgetting one important stage in the chain.

It doesn't go:
Musician -> reproduction

It goes:
Musician -> PRODUCTION -> reproduction

Herein lies the true complexity of my original question. As someone who has spent a lot of time as a novice (or maybe amateur) in all 3 of these stages of music, I can tell you that production engineers also have the same quandary regarding the science vs art issue as those of us heavily involved in reproduction. Think about the variety of music you listen to: Is it Recorded and/or mixed:

In an anechoic chamber? Large dead room? Large hall? Small studio room? Bedroom? Outside?

With close up mics? Long distance mics? Dynamic mics? Condenser/tube mics?

With heavy digital reverb? Gated reverb? Delay?

In Stereo? Panned monophonic? Ambiphonic?

Sub-bass heavy? Compression heavy? Open and dynamic?

Since there is no right or wrong answer to the engineer/s involved, it is an art, yes?

Not as easy as that. Look at it from the engineer's perspective. If you use all of your "artistic" ideas about what would sound good in a recording you're about to do(recording)/have done(mixing) without applying some logical and scientific principles, the finished product will sound like garbage to you and everybody else who hears it. So it is a science and an art, since pro recordings sound good (a loose objective), at least to some people.



Now back to us car audio people. We have a massive array of musicians' (artistic input) and engineers' (artistic and scientific input) on tap, and since we do not have anything even close to the mixing engineer's monitoring system, we have to use our brain and our tastes to accomplish something that sounds pleasing. No way would I use the same volume, Crossover, and eq settings for Metallica, Pendulum, Rebecca Pigeon, Genesis, All That remains, Beethoven, Thomas Newman, Rolling Stones and Micael Buble. Nor do I want it to sound the same on my car as it did in the room where it was mastered.

So is it an art or a science?

I like BiAmping too, but I'm a bit lost as to whether what I am doing is going to help or hinder me.

My Polk SR6500 crossovers have (from memory, I could be wrong) a 18db/oct cut on the tweets and a 12db/oct cut on the midbass, both at 3.1khz.

I am bia-mping using the 300/4's variable filters, setting them outside of the xover range (~5khz for the midbass and ~1.5khz for the tweets), both at a 24db/oct cut.

The reason I am doing this is to avoid amplifying frequencies that will be thrown away later anyway. Is this a good idea, or does the fact that I have a really weird Xover slope negate any power saving negate the good I have done by keeping the amps colder?

Crossover and EQ values should only EVER be setup to account for drivers and acoustic space, not the music.

If you have to setup a system to account for various music, you need to address some major flaws in your system.

yes i think you can, its like having 20 different custom crossovers grouped on a board that you can switch electronically to make any value crossover>>>>>>electronic variable passive.

Trademark on EVP btw

Well, the EQ thing is a little up in the air. Sometimes, some of the music we like has some major mastering "flaws" of its own. If you've ever cranked Metallica's "...and justice for all" album, you'll instantly find yourself reaching for your eq to cut the 80hz by about seven hundred decibels. That's not a flaw in every system i listen to it on, the massive 80hz hump (which will show up on an rta) is just something I (and a few others I know) really don't like about its production. Many other albums that I enjoy listening to have other idiosyncrasies of their own (usually in the eq), but are otherwise really good recordings that I would like to listen to and hear the same way as I hear everything else. I know it's fairly nasty to do so, but sometimes if I feel a snare drum's low end was mixed in too softly, I'll raise up the ~200hz to bring it back to where I like it (as long as it still sounds fairly natural/accurate). Heck, if the producers are allowed to put their artistic input into musicians' work with eq and dsp, then those of us who strive for great reproduction shouldn't think that we would no longer qualify as audiophiles if we do the same.

In the end, if it's something that brings an involuntary smile to your face or tear to your eye, then it's worth FAR more i.m.h.o. than simply making it sound the same as it did in the mastering room.

And hence the final crux of it all!!

Do you: Setup your system to reproduce faithfully that which is on the CD?
or: Setup your system to reproduce the sound to your liking.....??

This will also seperate a system at a competition, because the judges look for faithfull reproductions as "SQ" rides...

For the record,

i'm sure none of us SQ heads have come up with a system that will sound good AND blast a woman's clothes off like in the Italian job.

SPL burps don't count unless you find a lady that gets in the mood listening to 40 hz tones.

but back on topic.

Surely we can find the middle ground here?

Bi/tri amping has come a long enough way to make it a viable option no? EQ/TA etc etc all via the active component and leaving the passive parts to compensate for phase, weather etc etc?

Well perhaps if you left his reply there for all to see each of us could have reached that conclusion.

I understand that this forum has certain rules that we agree to when becoming a member, but I never recall that having an opinion was against the rules of this forum! It's my opinion that the majority of statements made on this forum are not based on fact, but merely hear say and the like.

I have always been one to admire the way you conduct yourself on this forum Pulse-R, but sadly I feel that you may have used poor judgement when choosing to censor abmolech's reply.

If some ruthless Nazi dictators have confiscated your computer and are posting under your username then I can understand. Otherwise I feel abmolech deserves an apology and is entitled to have his post restored.

Considering the post in question was solely directed toward another member, and was disrespectful to them (even I was offended by what was written), I maintain my decision to make the deletion.

If abmolech chooses not to contribute further as a result, that is his decision. I don't dislike anyone on this forum, but there has to be a limit.

I posted a warning to both parties, and unfortunately one member decided to cross the line: I would have deleted anybody's post in that instance.

I can not tell people what to write, but I can tell them what I feel is unacceptable in the SQ forum. Anyone has the opportunity to post whatever they like in the open discussion forum, but the SQ forum is for discussion of SQ.

You speak the truth.

Best way to do it imo is just to get your audiophile cd's, and tune your car to accurate perfection with those. Then when you are driving around town listening to less "perfect" recordings, having the skill to quickly make small alterations to your sq setting to better suit a particular cd's flavor is something not to be underestimated. If I had the patience, I would write or store the setting for each cd somehow. Better yet, if I ever get the stones enough to get a carputer, I'll write a program to allow me a different setting for EVEY SINGLE cd I ever put in. Ah, to dream of such a day.

I obviously missed something here. Where did Dean say that you didn't know anything.


So Dean said you don't have the 'wherewithal'. If you look up the definition of wherewithal you'll see that it doesn't include intelligence, practical ability, previous relevant successes etc etc. The word means the necessary means (very general) but does relate to financials. "In a nutshell" doesn't mean this is an absolute fact, in fact quite the opposite.


Now that's how you tell someone he's an idiot. TBH, I think you should be apologising for that.

BTT

I've read through this thread and I still can't understand why passive works for you. What I'd like to know is why you went passive and what was the benefit of your passive set up over any active set up that you might have considered in the build process. That's my read on the initial question that started this thread.

I recently acquired some "highly regarded" passive crossovers, and decided to do some maths and measurement exercises.

These crossovers are quite simple in appearance, but quite complex in operation.
The crossover slopes are designed in such a way that they partially compensate for "characteristics" of the drivers they are designed for.
Of particular note is the tweeter section, which is roughly a 12dB/oct slope, with one big exception! the two poles of the filter are not at the same frequency. They are in essence two separate 6dB/oct filters in one simple circuit. This solution became obvious when I looked at the response curve for the tweeter - it has a bit of a bump at the bottom end, which this passive crossover 'smoothes out' prior to rolling off.

what sort of active crossover works for u ?

that is the question ?

could it be that a large part of SQ is acurate reproduction of female vocals ???

do all female vocals traverse both tweeters and mids ?

could using a phase correct shallow slope passive crossover provide superior results to a steep slope active set up reagrdless of tweaking skills ?

could a legendary speaker maker like dynaudio possibly know more than a hard working tweaker such as myself ?

Could I build a relatively simple system, that is set flat, has no TA, and yet due to proper install beat the most advanced TA'ed, active, eq'ed systems around ?

technology has its place and my system has its fair share of semi(15year old) advanced tech, but just because you can use tech, does that mean you can and forget the basics?

I have never had all the answers, and raise more questions than I answer, but I have never stated absolutes.

its all about thinking for yourself and never about telling anyone *its like this*

you don't have to like me or how I behave but Im not here to tell you what to think or do, but I will react when someone says what I have done is wrong and states its must be because I know nothing. Sure it wasnt directed at me personally but it did dismiss my acheivements, by assoiciation, as being those of happenstance rather than good planning.

later
Cyberpunky

f*** this I'm going back to home audio.


Only kidding



I agree ten hundred percent.



Which is what craps me about the whole idea of SQ competetions.

Why should I spend my money and time making a system that sounds good for someone else whose going to listen to it for 5 minutes?

Do I even like how the CD was produced? Listen to some successful bands' first ever CD and their latest release and it is rediculously different, why shouldn't I compensate for the fact that their first album sounds crap because they couldn't afford a decent producer/recording studio?

Surely for pure "SQ" getting a RTA and making the system perfectly flat would be the best? (Obviously using high end gear with minimal distortion, group delay ladda ladda.....)


Even with such a system everyone here is forgetting the single, number one most important thing...your ears! Go and have your ears tested against the "average" person. My mate had it done and had a quite significant dip at one point (can't remember quite where now but in the 2k-4k region IIRC). If he tuned a "perfect" sq system would he screw it up due to his ears and thus in competition not have a perfect system? Where does it end?

Anyway its quite late and I'm ranting At the end of the day I just want my gear to sound good to me and if thats because its got a little extra bass than most or even if I just get a kick out of running fancy gear then so be it

read up on floyd toole. he *might* argue otherwise.

I'm running a H701 but having a few noise issues with it.

I ran passive in my previous car and always felt like I could have set it up better to my own personal preference. I'm no expert tuner so whether I was dreaming or not is a different story.

AFAIK there isn't a passive crossover available for my current set up, and I'm not going to go out and try and build one. Having the active allows me to experiment and see what works for me and what doesn't. Funnily I'm yet to even start the tuning process, too many other things to do first.

you are all missing the point...seriously

I don't tune to a disc. I listen to everything except c n w and opera.. but I want my system to make music fun. sure many bands first album isnt as well produced as 2nd or 3rd, but it has an energy that makes up for lack of production values. my system plays it for what it is. I don't not listen, because I like it, but its not well produced...I like what I like


The thing everyone has missed in this discussion, ... is (drum roll) that I chose passive even thou I have been active before for one reason... and its the reason we are ALL here.

I liked how it sounded....thats it...a wise man once said if it sounds good and measure's bad you are measuring the WRONG thing.


You can all discuss the pro's and cons of red VS white but at the end of the day its about the MUSIC.

its really that simple


see my sig....*stop thinking and end your problems*
peace
Cyberpunky

Dude,

Your're so wrong...

its about the ladies.

The music is just to set the mood.

<<<actually agrees with negatron lmao

never forget the ladies

damn, this whole discusson is over because I mention active V passive, and suggest its all in listening rather than specs ???

please *someone* explain to me why specs make for better listening ?

sure even thou I cant hear them, they must make all the difference because we can all get same results ifn we just mearsure

mmm specs

if it was all about specs then we'd all come first at the SQ comps, we wouldn't need judges - just a machine.

The best sounding systems have passive crossovers, the most accurate (technically) have active crossovers.

I mastered both passive and active. cyberpunky may remember me and the mad scientist experimental green RVR. at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter passive or active as long as you have the skill to get it right. passive may sound as good or better If you know what you are doing. Active may sound like sh-it if you got no tuning skill. tuning skill is the most important thing. being passive or active doesn't really count.

I cant even remember if i replied to this already in the past or not, so i'll reply now anyway.

Like TheMatt stated earlier in the thread, both active and custom passive crossovers are major improvements over factory passives, simply because they are flexible and adjustable.

-----------

Factory Passives

Factory passives essentially take some of the weaknesses of custom passives and active, combine them together, and throw away all of the biggest benefits.

Unlike a 'set' custom passive, factor passives often provide switches to allow for some small degree of adjustment. However like an active crossover, these adjsutments are typically limted to a set of predetermined values, and the degree of adjustment between them is typically not great enough to be all that effective. For example, a factory passive may have a tweeter attenuation switch which allows you to set your tweeter level to -3dB, 0dB and +3dB. These settings are typiclaly spaced too far apart to be of huge use (how about -1.5, + 1.5??) so they lack the infinately adjustable nature of a custom passive, yet they also require physical switch flicking so they lack the practicality of a 'push-button' active setup.

Next, factory passives and included with speaker sets, and so they are often built to a price. If you have a $1,000 set tht uses $250 tweeters, $500 mids and $250 crossovers you are sacrificing the quality of your tweeters to accomodate for the cost of the crossover. If you want to stay factory passvie, you are then stuck with those tweeters. You cant just change them for another set, because the variation in TS specs of the new tweeters will alter the settings of the passives and result in unpredicatable changes to crossover points, slopes, levels, etc. Obviousoly, the more you spend on crossovers, then less you have left to invest into the drivers (which are critical) so the result is that crossovers are usually the first components to get compromised. 6dB and 12dB slopes are common because in passives they are much easier and cheaper to implement. three way crossovers with 24dB slopes are comparatively very clostly and complex to build, so a budget friendly set of three ways (for example) will often have crossovers built for convienience rather then outright performance.

Finally, factory passives are built purely around the drivers, and as TheMatt said installation and environment play just as significant a rold in system perofrmance. A speaker company can not POSSIBLY build a passive that accounts for every single car interior, and every possible speaker location - so they don't really try. They build the crossovers to suit a certain type of installation that they feel most people will put them into, and that's that. If you put those speakers somewhere other then the 'intended' location, they generally won't perform as predicted.

As a perfect example, Focal 165K2Ps are a very nice sounding component set. I've heard them in a listening room in speakers boxes, and they sounded absolutely brillint. The mid are good up to 3k, which is impressive for a 6,5", and the tweeters struggle berlow this point. As such, the crossovers cross the drivers up around that frequency to protect the tweeters and blend nicely with the mids. However, what happens in a car? Most people mount their mids in factory locations which means down low and off-axis. Off axis, - like general 6.5" mids - the 6K2P's start to roll off mucch sooner, around 1.5khz. By the time you get to 2.5k your response is way down and by the time you get to 3,5k you can forget hearing any detail. Since eh crossovers are fixed, the system is still crossed around 3khz, only now the mids are only playing flattish up to 1.5khz...so suddenly you have a big 1,5khz gap in your response right bang in the middle of one of the most important frequencies ranges, your midrange. The drivers haven't changed, the crossovers havent changed - but the environment has, and it's made all the difference in the world.

Active or custom passive, you could counter the above problem by modifying the crossover point or slope, or by replacing the tweeters to one that can play lower. In a factory passive it's set, and all you can do is live with it or modify it (at wich time iit's not a factory passive anymore).

No speaker / crossover combination can possibly be perfect for EVERY installation and EVERY environment - it's simply not possible.

------

Custom Passives
Custom passives can conter for these issues because they allow a person to select their drivers, and study their installation, and build a specilised crossover network to suit their specific application. With the right selection of components, a custom passive gives the right person the ability to alter and modify pracically anything to practically any degree and so when it comes to car audio, they are overall the most adjustable option because they don't restrict you to any preset 'values' of adjustment.

So if they are so infinitely adjustable, why not go with custom passives? They do have a couple of potential shortfalls.

1) Active crossovers typically give pretty impressive adjustmen, so to get any benefit from a passive crossover over an active one, you really need to get them pretty complex. The more passive crossovers get, the more expensive they cost to build - and in terms of both time and money, complex passives can get VERY expensive. Also, due to their complexity (and the fact that they are put together by humans) passive crossovers almost always require a reasonable deal of trial and error in order to get them optimal. That means constant modification which in turn means again more time, and more money. In terms of the cost and time required to get them right, they are a very inefficient form of processing.

2) Passive crossovers aren't digital, they are analog. This means that like analog signals, they are succeptable to noise, and effected by almost everything you can imagine. When you build a custom passive, it must be built specifically for your drivers. The second you replace your drivers, you must rebuilt or modify your crossover because driver impedance curves effect the operation of passive crossovers. A 2.5khz @ 24dB slope using one driver, could change to something completely different once you replace it with a different driver. Hell, even if you replace it with another driver with the same nominal impedance, it might still change because the impedance curve will still likely differin some way or other. So, as far as accomodating for modifications, they aren't exactly the most flexible form of processing.

3) Being electrical components, as mentioned above, many things effect passive crossovers. First of all, the components themselves attract noise, and therefore introduce distortion nto the signal path. Secondly, implemeting crossover points typically has major negative affects on driver properties such as damping factor. Many people look at how high the damping factor of an amp is before buying, and wont buy something with a damping factor of less then 200 or 400 or whatever...now consider because of they way they function, passive crossovers often bring damping factor down to low as 1, or even less. If you were looking for an amp to run your midbass, how many of you would consider a $1,000 amp with a damping factor of 0.5? Not many i'd bet, yet it's not uncommon for such damping factors to be imposed on speakers as a direct result of passive crossovers, reducing control over cone movement and increasing the risk of driver's being damaged.

--------

Active crossovers

Digital active processors are (imo) the best overall compromise between cost, tunability and efficiency. Good active processors provide a great deal of tunability, and typically offer more adjustment then 90% of users will ever use. They allow control every evertyhing from crossover points, crossovers slopes, EQ, Time Alignment, gain adjustment and (to a lesser degree) phase. Processors used for some high end head units (such as the HXD2) provide extreme degrees of tunability, with gain levels adjsutable in as tight as 0.5dB increments, time alignment in 7mm increments, and 24 different levels of Q adjustment on the EQ. This gives them more tunability then most would ever use, but with some significant benefits.

Pros
1) Because they are digitally controlled, active crossovers are not dependant on driver characteristics the way passives are. If you set a 24dB @ 2.5khz crossover on an active crossover, then that crossover setting will remain set for any driver regardless of impedance. This means that you can mix and match drivers as you please, and all you need to worry about is optimising the crossover point and matching your gain levels. That also means you are no longer restricted to buying component sets, and 'living' with the weaker driver. Running active you are free to choose the right individual drivers for YOU application, and set them up as you wish. They also don't effect damping factor the way passives do, and so passive systems typically permit far greater control over cone movement then passive systems while also adding in less signal noise / distortion for a purer signal.

2) They are more practical and arguably cheaper then passives. It costs money and takes time to modify passive crossovers, and the components themselves can potentially lose effectiveness over time. With an active processor, once you have bought it thats it...you will never have to spend a cent again. Changing settings doesn't require changing any components or doing any soldering...you simply press a button on a remote control or head unit, and the changes are made within a second and the push of a button.On active crossovers, trial-and-error approaches are somewhat acceptable (as long as you have some idea of what you are doing) because it is so easy to test different settings instentaneously from the drivers seat and see how the sound is effected. It makes tuning infinately easier and is must more user friendly. A passive crossover can cost thousands to build, on top of which you still need to buy a source unit. Comparatively, a tad over $500 can buy a good head unit with a quite decent inbuilt active processor.

Cons
1) Amplification...in a passive system, a signal goes from source to amplifier, then to crossover, then to each speaker. You only NEED one amplifier channel per crossover input, essentially. In an active system, the signal goes from source to processor, then to amplifier, then directly to each speaker. Thus, you need one amplifier channel per speaker. Consider a three-way active front stage with a sub - thats 7 speakers. Runing passive, such a system would typically require (as a minimum) three channels of amplifcation (Left, Right, Sub). Active, that same system would require 7 channels of amplifaction (Left High, Right High, Left Mid, Right Mid, Left Low, Right Low, Sub). More channels means more bigger amps, more current draw, and more cable runs. As far as initial setup goes, active isn't simple or cheap - a high quality 6 channel amp + monoblock combo will generally set you back well over $2k on amplfication alone. Overall, they typically do work out cheaper then custom passives - but it's still far from cheap.

2) By definition, digital values are preset steps. Anything in the digital world is (at it's lowest level) defined by 0's and 1's, so it's impossible to get a true analog (variable) adjustment in a digital processor. What does this mean? You can only set the values that the processor has inbuild. If you want a 3dB crossover slope (for whatever reasons), then chances are an actove priocessor wont help you because I don't know of a single one the offers a 3dB slope. You will typically be limited to either 6, 12, 18, 24 or 36dB slopes that have been preset by whoever built the crossover. Likewise if you have a sharp peak between 8.5k and 9.2k that you want to being down by 6.3dB chances are an active crossover won't do it. A good one may get very, very close to it, but you always are limited by the preset settings that are available - generally no active processor for a car will give you enough adjustment over gain, Q and centre frequency to allow such an adjustment to be made. With a passive crossover however, you can do almost anything you want if you have the money and brains to figure out what combination of components you need. So if you get obsessive enough and require absolutely precision to the nth degree, a passive crossover ultimately IS more infinately adjustable then an active one.. To be fair though, few people would ever require adjustment so fine.

Because 'specs' do in fact have a great impact on what we hear. It's not the be-all-and-end-all, beause there are certain things such as phase, timing and reflections that cannot easilly be measured with equipment. However, those things that we CAN measure with equipment do have a strong bearing on what we hear.

Why does a system sound 'muddy'? It's not because it's actually covered in mud, or because our ears are covered in mud, it's because there is a boost at some particular lower end frequencies which cause it to sound that way.

Why does a system sound 'bright'? Again, it's not because there is too much sun shining on our earlobes, it's because the tweeter (or high frequencies overall) are playing at a higher level then the midrange/midbass/subass frequencies.

Why does a system sound 'harsh'? It's not because there are sharp pieces of glass coming out of the speaker and firing at your ears, it's because there are sharp peaks at particular frequencies that makes them stand out aggressively about other frequencies, and this sudden increase in amplitude makes our ears feel uncomfortable.

Why do some systems lack sparkle? Because many tweeters (even on axis) begin to roll off fairly early in the frequency range (say 15khz) where our ears are still reasonably sensitive. The lower intensity of the sound at those frequencies (compared to at surrounding frequencies) make them sound 'lacking' by comparison, and so the details in the notes aren't as clearly identifiable.

So many people talk about how 'what you hear' is more important then 'what you see' on a graph or a measuring device, but they fail to understand that what you look at on a graph actually closely represents what you hear.

People talk about passive being more pleasing, active being more technically accurate and 'cold' sounding, and all of this - as far as im concerned, it's all rubbish. These words being thrown around are descriptions of tonality, and tonality is primarlly determined by component choice and tuning, not the type of crossover used. If you have the two identical systems in identical cars, both RTA tuned in an identical way, installed in identical locations/positions/angles, using identical crossover points and slopes then guess what - the two systems will sound practically identical.

In fact, in the above scenario, I'd challenge ANYONE to identify which system is which in a blind test.

My opinion? Tonality has bugger all to do with whether you run active or passive, it DOES have to do with how you tune. You can make a Passive system sound cold and technically accurate if you want, and you can make an active system sound warm and 'pleasant' if you want. All you need is the right components and the right tuning adjustments.

That's my beliefs, anyway

Muzzy no offense but you contradict yourself..you say graphs impact what you hear and yet what you hear doesnt matter its how you tune blah blah blah...man its all about how it sounds..if you need a graph to get you there thats kewl..there is no right or wrong, just results.... but seriosly like I said ...measures bad sounds good you be measuring wrong thing...just FKN listen

Why you spec heads forget its simple....<<<has never heard a spec ever (*this sounds like a 93Db per watt per metre sub with a BL of XXX*), ME has only ever heard music
peace
Cyberpunky

Where the hell did I say "it doesn't matter what you hear, it's how you tune"?

I didn't say that at all...I said that it doesn't matter if you run active or passive, the results will be similar if the tuning is similar.

A system doesn't automatically magically sound a squillion times different just based on the simple fact that it's processed passively rather then actively. Our ears don't hear 'passive' and 'active', they hear frequencies, time, distortion, phase, etc. Regardless of how a system is processed, it will sound the same to our ears as long as all of these things are the same.

They will also look the same if you measure them on an RTA so yes, what we see on a graph typically does have a strong relationshp to what we hear. An RTA records frequencies and amplitudes and humans hear frequencies and amplitudes. Those with a trained ear, who know what they are listening to, will pick out flaws in a system and these flaws will usually be somewhat consistent with what measuring equipment will pick up...albeit the measuring equipment will pick it up more accurately.

P.s.
I didn't say graphs impact on what you hear, I said they reflect what you hear. If a speaker has a 10dB peak @ 2khz on a graph, then I can assure you that your ears will hear that peak - they may not identify what it is or where it is, but they will hear it.

You could spend a week playing with settings trying to find and EQ out one single flaw in a system by trial and error, or you could spend 10 mins with a graph or measuring device and find it in an instant. It's like using three people to carry a fridge, when you could just use a trolley

i think hyde original question in post 1 needs to be clarified.

QUOTE

Why would it better to run active/semi active/passive?

You can come up with different answers to his question if you are just starting out or you dont want to spend alot of money , but i think because this is the SQ forum ,where the bar never closes , then the question is or should be .

Why would it better to run active/semi active/passive to obtain the ultimate SQ (thats 100% effective).

There seems to be some compromising ideas in regards to budget,install factor.

there is always compromise. no one way is the best.

as an example of what i am refering to is >

head unit with crossover points of 1000hz, 1600hz, 2000hz, 2500hz, 3150hz, 4000hz, 5000hz with slopes of 6db,12db,18db,24db.
That would be the average SQ headunit i have described above. Thats also 24 different combinations u can use with that active setup. With a passive crossover u have unlimited combinations that u can obtain.
A high quality processor may allow your to have a few hundred combinations to extract the best possible combo for your application, but still it is not limitless like a passive.

So active with limited tuning tools may be actually a major restriction compared to a custom passive, even a custom passive for every driver.
i mentioned this cause i can see in different posts where people are coming from in the context of every situation.

That's right Corrs - also with passive, you can add extra bits, say to make a complex curve from a combination of 6dB/oct at 1 frequency, and then on to 12dB/Oct at another frequency (This is what Dynaudio do in their 3-way crossovers).

it allows a gradual smoothing of the response around the crossover frequency - not too many active setups will do that, except a PC-based system.

This is correct. However it's also important to understand that with a passive crossover every action tends to have some form of side effect, and the more complex a passive gets the more side effects you get as a result.

I won't go into it too much, but there is much information about it online. Here is one page that goes into it a little for those who are really interested in doing a little research on the topic:
<a href="http://sound.westhost.com/biamp-vs-passive.htm" target="_blank">http://sound.westhost.com/biamp-vs-passive.htm</a>

So yes, while passive crossovers can theoretically do more then active crossovers, in order to do so the side-effects are often so significant that you just wouldn't do it - and in the real world this somewhat limits how far you'd actually want to go with them. It's not just cost that is the factor, it's also complexity and the resulting effect on SQ.

Not trying to rubbish them and say they don't have their uses / benefits, just trying to explain (to those who aren't aware) that even custom passives aren't without their flaws. You need to look at your own specific situation, what you hope to achieve, and what you may potentially sacrifice in order to achieve it. Then you need to ask yourself, is it worth making the sacrifices in order to achieve what you want to achieve? In some cases the gain may be worth it, while in other cases the sacrifices may be so great that it may hurts your sound more then it helps it.

As Pulse-R stated, there is no one, single perfect solution for every scenario - even if money is no object, whichever solution you use will always have it's limitations.

Personally, I prefer active because it is easier to implement, cheaper to implement, more flexible, and offers fewer undesirable side effects. It's a personal thing

I put a flux capacitor into an active cross over once to try get the crossover slopes so steep that the frequencies were cut off before they were even played.

It worked really well in testing but about 5 mins before the SQ comp the space time continuium differences across each of the drivers (3 ways + sub) was too much and the set up just winked out of existence!

so... was it the complex active setup? or the dodgy handwound (passive!) flux capacitor to blame?

serves you right for using those ebay flux capacitors doesnt it.

try buying local next time

Muzzy I'm glad you found your thing, but I found mine because it was cheaper, easier, simpler, etc

but most significantly, it SOUNDED better

Forget white papers on custom passives and remember its ALL about how it sounds

my system sounds OK

Just listen then discuss merit of this V that

peace
Cyberpunky

Ok so im looking at giving Active a try

got the alpine mrv f345 and im only running fronts so im thinking why not

so should i wire the tweets with the crossover or should i just wire it straigh to the amp,

i have the alpine 9887 so i was gonna put it in the active mode

any other hints would be appritiated

If you are going 'active' then you will be using the internal amp crossover or crossover inside the headunit to split the frequencies.

You do not use the passive crossover at all.

Your best to set it up semi active with that setup. Wire the tweets throught the passive for protection - tweeters hate low freqs

ok so its semi active with the crossover,

i think ill go without the crossover, im gonna replace the splits anyway so if i damage them ill just learn from it

I would suggest going semi active first (easy to do) then go fully active. Compare the difference in sound, as you may well be impressed with the quality of the passive X/O. Then you can decide which one gives you the best sound