Hello all,

First of all, thanks for all the help you guys have given me. Based on your recommendations when I first joined this site a few months ago, this is my system as it stands:


System 1. I am very pleased with the way this system sounds, however there is no subwoofer and no midrange driver. I can compensate for the lack of bass by turning up the EQ, but that just muddies up the midrange and there is still no true low-down bass. So I need a subwoofer. The mids and highs sound a little bit bright, and there is audible seperation between the MD-130 and the MW160GT - as in, I can hear the spatial difference between the two speakers. So a midrange driver is in the cards. To power my new speakers, I will need to purchase a new amplifier.

So after nearly $3500 worth of parts and install I should end up with this:


System 2. You will notice there is no crossover in this system - I am running it fully active using the built-in crossover in the DEQ-P9R. From my reading elsewhere, there are a few advantages of a fully active setup:

1. Improves amplifier damping
2. More power
3. Less heat
4. Fewer electronics = better signal purity

However my installer believes that passive crossovers sound better. This is a bit counter-intuitive to me - I am wondering how putting MORE electronics in front of your signal path can possibly improve the sound? Anyway, this is the system he is proposing:


System 3. As above but with custom passive crossover. This would add a further $1000 to the cost!!

What do you guys think? Is it worthwhile going for the custom passive x-over?

if using the P9 EQ why would you go passive?

its an active crossover...

Since you haven't got a passive yet, it is worth trying the system in active by the p9 processor. If you do not like it, then there is always the option of custom passive. Even a basic custom passive is heaps better than the stock passive you are using now.

Hey, what sub are you getting man?

EXACTLY! That is why I am so confused. I really wonder what Yanddy is thinking. I can't see any advantages, only disadvantages. Can someone think of ANY advantages in going for the passive?

Probably the PHD AF 10" sub. But the Focal Be 5" sub looks pretty interesting too ... I actually have enough space to mount TWO of them on the parcel shelf behind me (and not lose any footwell space). I'll have a think about that and ask Yanddy

No, you are able to do everything from the processor. You do NOT need passives. Maybe its his way of making extra money

If you didnt have the processor then passives are the only way...

i was about to say, the only advantage i can see is you have to pay HIM more money for passive crossovers

anything a passive can do, an active will do, with much tighter control and customisation. You might find that playing some drivers slightly above/below their recommended cut-off yields you better results, something you cant really play around with on a passive crossover. You could also play around with db/oct slopes easier.

Stay active.

run a zapco amp for the sub and run the entire system active

id even look at a powerful 4channel tranistor to run the midbass and subbass

Thanks jas, I was waiting to see if someone would suggest an alternative amplifier to run the SW and W. I was told to keep it all Butler because the timing of valves and transistors is slightly different - namely, transistors are faster. Again, this doesn't quite square with what (I think) I know - firstly the Butlers are a hybrid tube/valve amp, and secondly there should not be too much difference in timing. A pure transistor amp setup would be cheaper and more powerful.

An alternative I was considering would be to buy two amps instead of one - a Milbert valve amp to run the mids, and then a monoblock to run the sub. This unfortunately would be a lot more money than I am willing to spend at the moment. And I am a little bit wary of feeding the mids 35Wx2 whilst the rest of the system is getting 75Wx2.

i am guessig no one here who replied has seen/heard yandy passive...

Well Bobby, I haven't. This is why I am posting the question - is it worth it? I mean, the guy won't have the reputation that he does if he recommended rubbish. I suspect that he knows what he is on about, but I am confused because every website I have googled tells me that active is better.

talk to Marc, he had one when he ran butlers. yanddy is pretty cood with his audio.

i would go custom passive if i could afford it ( nd keeped the me setup long enough)

most ppl will say active over pssive cause it's new tehnolagy and they dont know enough outit, yet mst i end home systms us passive

Havent got time to reply right now. I have a Yanddy built custom passive to suit your exact setup. Please email me admin@emediatetech.com

heylow,
well......this debate active vs passive is never ending...both has got their pros n cons. But some passive if done correctly will improve the sound....like adding EQ to the system to get rid of certain resonace apparent in the car environment...not very sure how this works though But ive heard some speakers using the same crossover/slopes sounding slightly diff on actice n passive......however many people tend to differ. maybe u should try some eton or peerless subs too. my mate just got a peerleer xxl12 n it sounds very detail n fast

good luck.

Mmmm....both subs sound like killer subs for SQ, that Focal 5 inch certainly sound interesting (can it really play low?)

Active, in theory is an ideal way to run a car audio system. But in reality it take a lot of time and knowledge to get it right. Website material will always remain theory, just like some diet plans I have read online. I never lose weight by reading them, although they sound ideal. So do not worry too much, you will have to experience both to see what is best for you. Either active or passive, I think you will be fine since Yanddy knows what hs is talking about.

You amp choices are fine but if you run it passive, you could bridge one of you 475 to run the 3 way frontstage, so each side will get 250-300wrms. For the other 475, depending on your sub, you can also bridge it mono so you can get more power out of it. This is if you are anxious about not getting enough power or headroom. But from personal experience, this will be a very fine setup. I have used an xtant x604 to run my subs before and now a x1001 (both amps at the 2k mark), but they do not even come close to what the TDB475 or the 2150 is capable of.

It seem crazy to fit the md130 and the midrange int your boxster, how are you going to install them?

To cut a long story short, going passive will take out too much power from your Dyns to perform at their best. You've got a convertible and you're going to need lost of power to get them sounding good on the move. See PM for longer responce.

Personally I'd want more power for the sub and maybe the mids, although you seem to have a preferance for that amp.

As for active vs passive, the tuning options once you go active are a definite plus. Time align each speaker, raise tweeters's gain instead of just cramming up trebel on the EQ ect.

As for the voodoo science part of it, the amplifier can directly control the cone of the speakers. Most DIY amps are done with zero electrolytics in the signal path, for good reason. Putting them in between amplifier and tweeter is going to have a nonlinear effect.

Thanks for your responses everybody.

Bobby Thanks I have already emailed Marc. I don't mean any disrespect, but what are the theoretical advantages of running a passive when I have enough equipment to run an active setup? I asked Yanddy the same question, and he said "it just sounds better". Now that I have educated myself a little bit more about electronics (I bought a book on car audio design and electronics on Saturday) I might go ask the same question again Even that book recommends an active if I can afford it. So does every audio website.

Immo_G I am aware of the theoretical advantages of active crossover's from all my googling. My understanding is the same as what you said, no insertion losses into the crossover, improved amplifier damping, more power, more flexibility, etc.

kinocrapa Thanks for that. I believe you when you say there is a difference, but what i'd like to know now is WHY there is a difference

@nthony I have no idea how the Focal Be 5"s will sound like. All I know about them is that they exist (see FHRXStudio's post about the new Focal Be's he just got in).

This is how Yanddy proposes to mount the MD130 and MD140/2 into the small factory speaker location:



MattyP thanks for your email. At the moment I am running system 1 (look at my first post for the diagram). You will see that I have two channels bridged and then running into an X-280 crossover. I get enough volume and clarity from this setup. Do you think I would still need more power? My car is a bit strange, I seem to get incredible volume from what little amplification I have (compared to some other cars with multi-amp setups). Maybe having such a small cabin space has something to do with it.

i dont know the theory side, never worryed about looking into it and probly never will.. i just use my ears
it could be a pycoacustic(sp) thing or it could be real but i dont know.. i just prefer the sound of a hi quality passive over a active xover.

it could be for the same reason you use tubes, they effect the sound to make it warmer (well tubes deteriorate the sound)

in the end it comes down to what you want, Active may be a better solution for you.
as i said i use an active setup but i have heard so many systems that use a passive xover that i prefer the sound of.

even my last car i went from active to the standard passive's and the SQ increased.

either way both are very time consuming to setup!

active is better in term of tuning flexibility. ideologically passive is better practically active is better. passive take more time to sound right.. end result ... I still prefer passive but not for competition. you never get the staging right.

I can do custom passive for $500 LOL