# Why does Boston Acoustics recommend passive crossovers?



## rain27 (Jan 15, 2009)

Why do some car audio manufacturers recommend using their passive crossovers rather than going active?

Anyone have any insight?


----------



## kvndoom (Nov 13, 2009)

Hmmmm...

Hook up tweeters to an amp with no protection.

Blow up tweeters.

Expect manufacturer to replace tweeters under warranty.

I know some people are more careful and protective, but you always have to cater to the lowest common denominator. The passive crossovers may not be the best sound quality, but they will probably offer the most protection to the speakers.


----------



## lycan (Dec 20, 2009)

rain27 said:


> Why do some car audio manufacturers recommend using their passive crossovers rather than going active?
> 
> Anyone have any insight?


Imagine you're a manufacturer. What are you more worried about :

1. An end-user/customer, or dealer network, complaining that they just couldn't get the stage depth that everyone talks about, or ...

2. Blown tweeters coming back in bucket-fulls

EDIT : yeah, what he ^^^^^ said


----------



## dgoldenz (Dec 22, 2009)

I'm not an engineer, but the passive crossovers in the set of SPZ-60's I just got looks pretty well made...


----------



## s4turn (Jun 17, 2009)

i've had a few sets of boston speakers
sl60s - ran passive
pro60's (not se's) ran active.. sounded awful due to my lack of knowledge..

current z6's running active, sound quite acceptable

never blown a tweeter in an active setup.. just make sure the gains arent set too high and x-over points arent too low for the boston tweeters.. in the past I've usually run mine up from 3khz.. anything less and they dont sound too crash hot

thats running per side 400 w rms into the mids as they are 3ohms same as spz's as well and 55 w rms into the tweeters.. which is more than enough..

I've emailed boston in the past.. and they will not help me with the x-over points either
I believe they have alot of R&D in their passive x-overs and strongely advise to use them.. from what I have been told


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

rain27 said:


> Why do some car audio manufacturers recommend using their passive crossovers rather than going active?
> 
> Anyone have any insight?




Because the crossover is the most important part of a loudspeaker. More important than the cone, more important the motor, more important than the basket, more important than the enclosure.

You could spend ten or twenty years learning the complexities of crossover design. And even with that level of expertise it takes days or weeks to design one. And that's IF, and only IF you have the proper tools and training.


----------



## Tonyguy (Nov 15, 2007)

I've been through 4 prs of tweetrs when I first switched to an active setup. Lesson learned.


----------



## roduk (Sep 19, 2008)

Patrick Bateman said:


> Because the crossover is the most important part of a loudspeaker. More important than the cone, more important the motor, more important than the basket, more important than the enclosure.
> 
> You could spend ten or twenty years learning the complexities of crossover design. And even with that level of expertise it takes days or weeks to design one. And that's IF, and only IF you have the proper tools and training.



This.

Crossover design is a black art. How many REALLY good hifi speakers don't run through a passive? not many.

I love the control of an active system but believe that a passive system can sound way better.


----------



## lycan (Dec 20, 2009)

Patrick Bateman said:


> Because the crossover is the most important part of a loudspeaker. More important than the cone, more important the motor, more important than the basket, more important than the enclosure.
> 
> You could spend ten or twenty years learning the complexities of crossover design. And even with that level of expertise it takes days or weeks to design one. And that's IF, and only IF you have the proper tools and training.


don't really agree 

Couple reasons :

1. A generic passive can't possibly be optimized for more than one listening environment (i.e., car). No two ways around it ... the passive that comes in the box is _not_ optimized for _your_ car.

2. Coming from an electrical engineer who really _is_ pretty well versed in crossover design, they're really not that complicated, mysterious or involved ... and yes, i'm well aware of the many issues involved. ESPECIALLY when one considers the car audio scene ... most crossovers are pretty darn basic. You're lucky to find one with anything higher than a 2nd order HPF on the tweet, even luckier to find one with impedance compensation on a shallowly-sloped mid.

Now, Boston certainly builds one of the better crossovers ... at least on the SPZ line ... fourth order slopes, reasonably high quality components, etc. But at the end of the day, you're looking at market (again, in the car audio scene at least) where the design parameters are no more complex than : pick a crossover frequency that lets you get by with the fewest components possible 

And before everybody jumps on my shyt, YES ... i've seen (and owned) the best passives from Focal, Rainbow, Dynaudio, Boston, etc. I've just seen too many car audio manufacturers "praise" their passives like the second coming ... heat stability, impedance correction, yada yada ... ALL of which are non-issues when one goes active or digital.

If you ask me which I'd prefer ... a mediocre driver set (with mediocre cone and mediocre motor) packaged with a really great passive, OR a great driver set (with state-of-the-art motors & cones) packaged with a junk (or absent) passive ... well, i know which way my wallet votes 

Call me jaded ... but there's just nothing a passive crossover can do that an active or digital can't do better. Except ... protect the tweets from misbehaving amps, or misbehaving tuners  And THAT'S the motivation behind Boston's stance.


----------



## zpaguy (Jan 17, 2010)

Tonyguy said:


> I've been through 4 prs of tweetrs when I first switched to an active setup. Lesson learned.


User error for sure.


----------



## lycan (Dec 20, 2009)

Just for clarification ... here's the possibilities for what Boston is _really_ saying :

1. "Our passives are so good, you just can't possibly duplicate the 'voice' with anything else". This, of course, is pure nonsense.

2. "We really have invested significant R&D into the passive design, and it would take countless hours of tuning to duplicate the results with active, or digital, filters. And we don't want the negative feedback that would come from the field with most tuners achieving poor results." Now this response has some merit ... maybe Boston really _did_ invest significant R & D. But wouldn't the better approach be to EDUCATE the dealer & consumer, by offering a good "starting point" for active tuning, for those wishing to optimize the speakers in _their_ listening environment? Instead of just shutting-down the inquiry about active tuning?

3. "We get significantly higher profit margin, on a per-component basis, from the passives than we do the actual drivers themselves. And we can _really_ leverage this point if we wrap special voodoo-lingo around the passives like: impedance compensation, heat stability, audiophile-grade, etc." I think this possibility speaks for itself ...

4. "The passives protect the tweets, and help minimize returns from the field." This still gets my vote, thinking like a manufacturer 

For what it's worth, i _really do_ like Boston Acoustics. First good speaker set I installed in a new 88 Honda Civic CRX  in one of my many returns to car audio.

I just react when people want to attribute a certain "magic" or "black art" to passive crossover design ... it's just a ground too fertile, too ripe, that's easily exploited by manufacturers.


----------



## HIS4 (Oct 6, 2005)

It just the simple fact that over 95% of their customers have no clue what running active means or how to tune using active filters. Like others have said, they are catering to the masses. It might seem a bit skewed on this forum because a good number of people are running active so people think its common knowledge but its really not. The manufacturer is just protecting themselves from a large number of damaged drivers if they were to say "go ahead and run it without the supplied crossovers". There is no way from them to ensure that you are setting up your speakers properly once you modify their design.

Same goes for pretty much any engineered part. They are engineered to work with certain supporting equipment and when it is not used in that fashion, all of their research and analysis is meaningless because the conditions have changed.


----------



## audio MD (Jan 17, 2010)

kvndoom said:


> Hmmmm...
> 
> Hook up tweeters to an amp with no protection.
> 
> ...


This would be the best answer to this post. If you run it through their xovers, it will be within the tolerances that they designed for the speakers without damaging them. It's warnings that manufacturer wants normal consumers to follow, and professional installers and enthusiasts ignores!


----------



## razholio (Apr 15, 2008)

passive xovers are a crude method of filtering frequencies to drivers, and come with lot's of baggage few people want. Anyone not running active should give this article a read, and then reconsider:
BiAmp (Bi-Amplification - Not Quite Magic, But Close) - Part 1


----------



## HIS4 (Oct 6, 2005)

razholio said:


> passive xovers are a crude method of filtering frequencies to drivers, and come with lot's of baggage few people want. Anyone not running active should give this article a read, and then reconsider:
> BiAmp (Bi-Amplification - Not Quite Magic, But Close) - Part 1


I guess almost every high end home audio system is crude and full of baggage. Most bi-amped home systems are still passively filtered.


----------



## razholio (Apr 15, 2008)

HIS4 said:


> I guess almost every high end home audio system is crude and full of baggage. Most bi-amped home systems are still passively filtered.


In this case, does high-end mean someone lost a lot of money in the purchase?  I'm curious why anyone would combine passive and active xovers... do you have any references?


----------



## buchaja (Nov 10, 2007)

razholio said:


> In this case, does high-end mean someone lost a lot of money in the purchase?  I'm curious why anyone would combine passive and active xovers... do you have any references?


It's done all the time. Do you have a sub out on your home receiver?


----------



## diamondjoequimby (Jun 30, 2009)

HIS4 said:


> It just the simple fact that over 95% of their customers have no clue what running active means or how to tune using active filters. Like others have said, they are catering to the masses. It might seem a bit skewed on this forum because a good number of people are running active so people think its common knowledge but its really not. The manufacturer is just protecting themselves from a large number of damaged drivers if they were to say "go ahead and run it without the supplied crossovers". There is no way from them to ensure that you are setting up your speakers properly once you modify their design.
> 
> Same goes for pretty much any engineered part. They are engineered to work with certain supporting equipment and when it is not used in that fashion, all of their research and analysis is meaningless because the conditions have changed.


pretty much this, except instead of 95% I would say it is closer to 99.6%.

You have to realize that as passionate and knowledgeable as this board generally is, we make up such a minutia of the overall sales for a company like BA it is barely on the radar.


----------



## HIS4 (Oct 6, 2005)

razholio said:


> In this case, does high-end mean someone lost a lot of money in the purchase?  I'm curious why anyone would combine passive and active xovers... do you have any references?


Pretty much any home audio speaker tower that has a mid or woofer and a tweeter in it has a passive filter mounted inside the enclosure. The ones with bi-amping terminals just have separate inputs to the low frequency network and high frequency network and typically have a shorting connector so you can amplify it with a single channel if you choose not to bi-amp.


----------



## ACRucrazy (Mar 13, 2007)

HIS4 said:


> Pretty much any home audio speaker tower that has a mid or woofer and a tweeter in it has a passive filter mounted inside the enclosure. The ones with bi-amping terminals just have separate inputs to the low frequency network and high frequency network and typically have a shorting connector so you can amplify it with a single channel if you choose not to bi-amp.


I happen to have a pic handy of the bottom of my B&W N802s, here you can see the crossovers and posts. Bottom posts are for the woofers, top for the mid/tweet.


----------



## razholio (Apr 15, 2008)

buchaja said:


> It's done all the time. Do you have a sub out on your home receiver?


Ok, that's the active xover, where's the passive? Certainly not in my powered sub...


----------



## razholio (Apr 15, 2008)

HIS4 said:


> Pretty much any home audio speaker tower that has a mid or woofer and a tweeter in it has a passive filter mounted inside the enclosure. The ones with bi-amping terminals just have separate inputs to the low frequency network and high frequency network and typically have a shorting connector so you can amplify it with a single channel if you choose not to bi-amp.


That's called biwiring and is of dubious benefit (read the article). A true biamp setup wires *around* the passive xover completely bypassing it. There is no point otherwise...


----------



## HIS4 (Oct 6, 2005)

razholio said:


> That's called biwiring and is of dubious benefit (read the article). A true biamp setup wires *around* the passive xover completely bypassing it. There is no point otherwise...


You do not need to bypass the crossovers to bi-amp. All you need a separate amp channels to power each driver. Whether there is a passive network between the amp and the driver doesn't matter.

Bi-amp = dedicated amp channels for each driver
Bi-wiring = 1 amp channel with mulitple sets of wires connected to it to power multiple drivers.

It has nothing to do with active or passive networks.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

HIS4 said:


> I guess almost every high end home audio system is crude and full of baggage.


Basically.



razholio said:


> That's called biwiring and is of dubious benefit (read the article). A true biamp setup wires *around* the passive xover completely bypassing it. There is no point otherwise...


Doesn't have to. You can run an active filter which then drives a passive filter. The benefit in doing so is that you're less likely to clip your amp, as it's no longer reproducing the entire unfiltered signal.


----------



## 89grand (Nov 23, 2006)

HIS4 is correct. You can bi-amp either with or without a passive crossover. *Active *would be no passive crossovers and bi-amped.


----------



## ACRucrazy (Mar 13, 2007)

HIS4 said:


> You do not need to bypass the crossovers to bi-amp. All you need a separate amp channels to power each driver. Whether there is a passive network between the amp and the driver doesn't matter.
> 
> Bi-amp = dedicated amp channels for each driver
> Bi-wiring = 1 amp channel with mulitple sets of wires connected to it to power multiple drivers.
> ...


This is correct.
I previously bi amped my center channel because I had an extra channel on my 2 channel amp. Yes the internal crossovers were left in place. I had the channel, I was going to use it. Some may say it wont be worth it, I say it wont hurt, it sounded great!


----------



## meisguy (Jan 16, 2009)

I've seen a bunch of guys on the european scene that design and build their own passive crossovers and they absolutley tear it up in competition. Anytime you can implement home audio principles in the car I say go for it! At the very least experiment with it.


----------



## razholio (Apr 15, 2008)

MarkZ said:


> Basically.
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't have to. You can run an active filter which then drives a passive filter. The benefit in doing so is that you're less likely to clip your amp, as it's no longer reproducing the entire unfiltered signal.


No you don't *have* to, but then that defeats the purpose. I suppose, though, it all comes down to semantics and which definition you use. I got my info from places like this:
BiAmp (Bi-Amplification - Not Quite Magic, But Close) - Part 1

where I read this:
<snip>
"Do I need to disconnect the passive crossover in my speakers?"
The answer is ... Yes, otherwise you are not really biamping at all.
<snip>

and then the original article I linked also comes to the same conclusion about biamping. Clearly there are two camps on this issue.

The point I was making was specifically avoiding the passive crossover can reduce quite a few problems that passive crossovers introduce into the signal like out-of-phase problems. The original article goes into great detail about all the problems associated with passive xovers.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

razholio said:


> No you don't *have* to, but then that defeats the purpose. I suppose, though, it all comes down to semantics and which definition you use. I got my info from places like this:
> BiAmp (Bi-Amplification - Not Quite Magic, But Close) - Part 1
> 
> where I read this:
> ...


Yeah, a right one and a wrong one.  Mr Linkwitz is probably being taken out of context there because he's very rarely wrong. Not only is it still biamping (ie. multiple channels to drive separate drivers from the same loudspeaker), but it's also beneficial for the reasons I stated. Granted, arguing over what "biamp" means is just a semantics issue. I was mostly taking issue with what you said about it having no benefit.



> The point I was making was specifically avoiding the passive crossover can reduce quite a few problems that passive crossovers introduce into the signal like out-of-phase problems. The original article goes into great detail about all the problems associated with passive xovers.


Passive crossovers introduce a number of problems. My point was that if you're stuck with a passive crossover for whatever reason (eg. you don't want to disassemble your loudspeaker), there's still some benefit to using a crossover before the amplification stage. That's why biampable terminals are usually a good thing. It's not a waste of time to make use of them.


----------



## XllentAudio (Jun 29, 2009)

whoever blows up tweeters is stupid


----------



## 89grand (Nov 23, 2006)

XllentAudio said:


> whoever blows up tweeters is stupid


Well, I've blown a few subs and a few mids in my time, but oddly, never a tweeter...but it can happen and not just because someone is stupid.


----------



## Vega-LE (Feb 22, 2009)

89grand said:


> Well, I've blown a few subs and a few mids in my time, but oddly, never a tweeter...but it can happen and not just because someone is stupid.


For some reason I thought you used horns?... I remember you from ECA, I think?


----------



## don_chuwish (Oct 29, 2009)

So Boston is famously tight lipped about how their xovers work, but why is it such a mystery? Hasn't anyone just measured the output, done some reverse engineering, etc? Just curious...

- D


----------



## 89grand (Nov 23, 2006)

Vega-LE said:


> For some reason I thought you used horns?... I remember you from ECA, I think?


It must have been someone else. I've never used horns and never spent much time at ECA.


----------



## 89grand (Nov 23, 2006)

don_chuwish said:


> So Boston is famously tight lipped about how their xovers work, but why is it such a mystery? Hasn't anyone just measured the output, done some reverse engineering, etc? Just curious...
> 
> - D


I doubt there is anything great going on in them, just a typical car audio crossover. That's just a hunch though.


----------



## THEDUKE (Aug 25, 2008)

Should not be too hard to figure out.


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

lycan said:


> Just for clarification ... here's the possibilities for what Boston is _really_ saying :
> 
> 1. "Our passives are so good, you just can't possibly duplicate the 'voice' with anything else". This, of course, is pure nonsense.
> 
> ...


I have to agree with you to a certain extent. Ive built many x-overs using high end parts with special software and usually the speakers sound great! But there are speakers that do require a special crossover to bring out the finest sound it can create. For example. I had the Old Velodyne Book shelf speakers that were elite. All Aluminum hand made cones. The crossovers were inside the speaker enclosures and some of the parts were in my opinion trash. So All I did was upgrade the caps and a few inductors to higher quality. I didnt change the design. The final result was such a horrible difference that I thought I made a mistake. So i redid the soldering and mapped out the design. Velodyne even gave me the schematics for the xovers. Again. It was terrible. Apparently some of the components were chosen for there specific characteristic I also had a pair of old Orion 18db per octave subwoofer crossovers made specifically for the old Orion Subs because they had a zobel network in them. I put them on a pair of PG Ti15's and powered them up. The subs had a weird knocking noise and was just horrible. Using a normal passive on the Ti15's and they sound fine. So the point is that when a company says to use there crossovers, Id use them. They took allot of time and researched the best possible parts, x-over points and slopes to use with that specific speaker. It isnt just about blowing a tweeter. Thats rubbish! Why do you think they would spend all that money on a crossover if it didnt make teh speakers sound good? If tweeter protection is all they wanted then they would have put a stupid ceramic cap in line with the tweeters but they didnt. They got this crossver designed to shape teh sound. Kinda like shoes. Some shoes just feel better and actually do help you to walk, run and jog better. Most of the time x-overs can be used on any speaker. That is when you are on a budget and dont care about elite SQ. BUT the higher end stuff is NOT the case. Yes you can use a active setup but that doesnt compensate for things the passives do. Crossovers are not just to separate the sound. When using certain slopes and zobel networks the speaker is much more controlled. A zobel network takes out allot of the distortion and harmonics especially on mids and tweeters. Its used on that specific speaker and build upon the speakers characteristics. You cant just swap the speakers and use the same zobel network with the expectation it will sound good. Like my experiences with impedance (AKA zobel) networks and high order crossovers, its best to USE it with the speakers it s made for. If you want to go active then fine! But buying a $1200 dollar pair of speakers and trashing the passive crossovers is like buying a bed and taking the stuffing or foam out of it!


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

HIS4 said:


> It just the simple fact that over 95% of their customers have no clue what running active means or how to tune using active filters. Like others have said, they are catering to the masses. It might seem a bit skewed on this forum because a good number of people are running active so people think its common knowledge but its really not. The manufacturer is just protecting themselves from a large number of damaged drivers if they were to say "go ahead and run it without the supplied crossovers". There is no way from them to ensure that you are setting up your speakers properly once you modify their design.
> 
> Same goes for pretty much any engineered part. They are engineered to work with certain supporting equipment and when it is not used in that fashion, all of their research and analysis is meaningless because the conditions have changed.


Running Active is fine. BUT keep in mind that running active is not much diffferent that using a passive. THE ONLY difference is that the crossover is BEFORE the amplification. So when the signal is fed into the active crossover it does still generate anomolies and phase shifts. All that is then amplified! There si no Zobel network used in active xovers. All you get is a slope choice and cut oof choice. That is very generic and isn NOT taylored to the speaker like passives on high end seperates are. When using a passive x-over the amplifier is amplifying the pure signal with no phase shifts and send it to the passive x-overs. The passives then actually do have some magic on the sound because depending on the network, it can attenuate the highs, mids or lows, flaten out peaks in almost any frequency range. Make a peak if the tweeters or mids you have dont play well at certaiin frequencies that Eq.s can fix. You can change the Q of a speaker with crossovers thuis enabling you to use them ina special box or no box at all. Active systems DONT offer this. I have an Alpine 9887. Its got the best Xover section Ive found on a deck minus a few very high in products. But for $300 to $500 its superior. Even though that is the case it still doesnt fix allot of the speakers brightness, dullness, flatness and shrillness that allot of the passives on high end gear does.


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

MarkZ said:


> Yeah, a right one and a wrong one.  Mr Linkwitz is probably being taken out of context there because he's very rarely wrong. Not only is it still biamping (ie. multiple channels to drive separate drivers from the same loudspeaker), but it's also beneficial for the reasons I stated. Granted, arguing over what "biamp" means is just a semantics issue. I was mostly taking issue with what you said about it having no benefit.
> 
> 
> 
> Passive crossovers introduce a number of problems. My point was that if you're stuck with a passive crossover for whatever reason (eg. you don't want to disassemble your loudspeaker), there's still some benefit to using a crossover before the amplification stage. That's why biampable terminals are usually a good thing. It's not a waste of time to make use of them.


Reading yall's posts I dont think some of you have any idea what Biamp means. There are 4 speakers connections. (2 pos and 2 neg) a pos and neg for for upper octaves and a pos and neg for the lower octaves. You can connect them all (Pos to Pos and Neg to Neg ) and then just connect them to one amp. Inside the speaker box the posts have been wired to send signals to specific speakers regardless of using one or 2 amps. If you want to power just the highs with one amp just disconnect the 2 pairs of connections and connect one pair (usually the upper ) to the amp and use the other lower pair (usually for lower octaves) for a different amp. SIMPLE!


----------



## lycan (Dec 20, 2009)

^^^^ lots of incorrect stuff in the above three posts ... exactly the kind of things i was referring to, in my earlier posts in this thread.

For example ... the all-mysterious "Zobel". All kinds of "magix" are erroneously attributed to it. Magix that are, of course, "lost" when you go active 

A Zobel network does this : it compensates for the non-flat impedance of the driver, which helps the passive crossover behave like it's supposed to ... in fact, the Zobel _compensates_ for a deficiency in the driver (non-flat impedance) so that the passive crossover can behave more like it's supposed to, more like a resistively-loaded crossover ... more like an _active_ crossover.

We don't use Zobels in active crossovers (typically) because we don't need the _compensation_ that they provide. There's no other "magic sq" associated with those Zobels.

Also ... a passive crossover and an active crossover will provide the EXACT same phase shift, per order of filtering. You don't gain any "phase benefit" by going passive 

Like I said ... more profit margins result, when you wrap all kinds of nonsense-lingo around your wonderful passive networks.


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

lycan said:


> ^^^^ lots of incorrect stuff in the above three posts ... exactly the kind of things i was referring to, in my earlier posts in this thread.
> 
> For example ... the all-mysterious "Zobel". All kinds of "magix" are erroneously attributed to it. Magix that are, of course, "lost" when you go active
> 
> ...


So what you are saying is that using A zobel network is retarded? Using a special network to compensate for phase shift is stupid? Let me paint a picture for you all. The signal passes from the source to an active filer. Then to the amp then to a raw driver. Picture the components of that active filer. Its the SAME components in a passive filter just allot smaller cause its not having to work with more wattage. Its working with very smalll volts. No matter what you do to a signal it will have anomolies when using filters. The Zobel flattens the peaks of frequencies and helps it work more efficient and sound better. Does an Active crossover do that? NO! Unless you add an active network with a zobel circuit wich some high end crossvers have for there own speaker. To make and even better picture for this claim you made that passive suck and arent needed, Lets look at the highest end Home speakers. They use passives! One company I know of, Meridian has a digital speaker system in the 10's of thousands of dollars and use active crossovers. There crossovers apply contouring to the signal just as a passive would. But using passives require more space and money cause the tolerances on high wattage components are %5. 10%. When using active crossovers the tolerance on the filetrs are close to %1 and use hardly no space. You can fit the parts on a small card. All this ******** about going active cause its better is generally NOT true WHEN USING HIGH END SPEAKERS. For midfi speakers its fine cause you wont get the best SQ out of the speakers anyway. But when paying $1000+ for a pair of seperates like the SPZ series, you better use the crossovers or you will end up hearing less than what you paid for. You can belive me and just use common sense that companies spend money on a computer optimized crossover for a reason or believe that an active crossover will fix all your problems. I dont care. Truth is some optimized x-overs that are using that claim are just normal. BUT the high end gear are optimized and do have a special magic on the speakers. You think Boston Acoustics and Alpine and Infinity spent all there money on fancy multi million dollar measuring gear just to build a useless crossover so your tweeters wont blow? HA! I got some beach from property In iran I think you might wanna invest in.


----------



## s4turn (Jun 17, 2009)

correct me if Im wrong, but how can a passive x-over account for every sort of car setup, i.e speaker postioning, Placement etc

I cant see how passives can be perfect for this
Sets like the Alpine f1 crossovers, maybe an exception

but most other component set crossovers, I dont think they are that flexible
I think the x-over point/slope would need to be set depending on how and where the speakers are installed, given that will affect their Freq response

I believe the speakers companies, assume certain Speaker installations and locations, and most likely even a setting for a comparator board to impress a customer in a demo room

I ditched my z6 crossovers straight away and went Active, and happy I did as they sounded much better than the passives I was using


----------



## lycan (Dec 20, 2009)

The-Big-Beat said:


> So what you are saying is that using A zobel network is retarded? Using a special network to compensate for phase shift is stupid? Let me paint a picture for you all. The signal passes from the source to an active filer. Then to the amp then to a raw driver. Picture the components of that active filer. Its the SAME components in a passive filter just allot smaller cause its not having to work with more wattage. Its working with very smalll volts. No matter what you do to a signal it will have anomolies when using filters. The Zobel flattens the peaks of frequencies and helps it work more efficient and sound better. Does an Active crossover do that? NO! Unless you add an active network with a zobel circuit wich some high end crossvers have for there own speaker. To make and even better picture for this claim you made that passive suck and arent needed, Lets look at the highest end Home speakers. They use passives! One company I know of, Meridian has a digital speaker system in the 10's of thousands of dollars and use active crossovers. There crossovers apply contouring to the signal just as a passive would. But using passives require more space and money cause the tolerances on high wattage components are %5. 10%. When using active crossovers the tolerance on the filetrs are close to %1 and use hardly no space. You can fit the parts on a small card. All this ******** about going active cause its better is generally NOT true WHEN USING HIGH END SPEAKERS. For midfi speakers its fine cause you wont get the best SQ out of the speakers anyway. But when paying $1000+ for a pair of seperates like the SPZ series, you better use the crossovers or you will end up hearing less than what you paid for. You can belive me and just use common sense that companies spend money on a computer optimized crossover for a reason or believe that an active crossover will fix all your problems. I dont care. Truth is some optimized x-overs that are using that claim are just normal. BUT the high end gear are optimized and do have a special magic on the speakers. You think Boston Acoustics and Alpine and Infinity spent all there money on fancy multi million dollar measuring gear just to build a useless crossover so your tweeters wont blow? HA! I got some beach from property In iran I think you might wanna invest in.


This post is so full of bullshyt it's hardly worth a response.

No, using a Zobel is not retarded ... providing that you UNDERSTAND ITS FUNCTION. All it does is flatten the impedance curve of a driver. This allows the passive crossover to behave as if its driving a resistive load ... thereby, behaving the way it's intended. That's it. No special "distortion magic". No special "efficiency magic". Just simple impedance compensation.

The Zobel is NOT needed with an active crossover, because the driver is driven with a low-imepdance source (the amplifier) and therefore the crossover characteristic will NOT be influenced by the driver's impedance. End of story.

*Therefore, the need & use of a Zobel in a passive is NOT any kind of "advantage" compared to an active crossover.*

The passive crossover, when properly terminated, provides the EXACT same phase shift as an active crossover.

*Therefore, there's no "phase" advantage to using a passive, compared to an active crossover.*

Most of your other comments about filters are also wrong. For example : passives & actives don't use the same components ... passives use resistors, capacitors & inductors while actives use resistors, capacitors & opamp feedback networks (you won't find a little inductor inside an active filter).

For the record :

*Passive crossover networks don't provide ANY sonic attributes that aren't more easily duplicated by an active network. ZERO. NONE.*

Active is superior, simply because it is MORE FLEXIBLE ... especially in the environment that the passive network was NOT designed for (YOUR car). Of course, active may be the more expensive route because more processing and amplifier channels are needed.

Car audio companies supply passives with their speakers, because :

- Profit margins are higher on passive components than raw drivers, especially if you market some "sonic magic" lingo with them.

- They protect the tweeters from field returns.

- The ignorant customer base expects them.

*But remember : the supplied passive was NOT designed for your environment, and there's nothing special about their "sound" that can't be easily duplicated with a MUCH more flexible active network, tuned for YOUR environment.*


----------



## lycan (Dec 20, 2009)

Also, regarding the crap about "high end speakers using passive networks" ... please visit the Linkwitz Orion, and tell us about the passive crossovers used in that design 

Siegfried Linkwitz knows more about speakers than all of us combined ... including anyone even _mentioned_ in this thread.

So please, cut the crap about the "sonic magic" of passive networks. Go find a more gullible audience.


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

s4turn said:


> correct me if Im wrong, but how can a passive x-over account for every sort of car setup, i.e speaker postioning, Placement etc
> 
> I cant see how passives can be perfect for this
> Sets like the Alpine f1 crossovers, maybe an exception
> ...


Passive crossovers dont change time alignment. And NO companies dont make x-overs to impress customers at a demo. Also . Very good on the active setup with the Z6. The passives were made to get the flattest frequency response which usually isnt the best sounding.


----------



## lycan (Dec 20, 2009)

The-Big-Beat said:


> Passive crossovers dont change time alignment. And NO companies dont make x-overs to impress customers at a demo. Also . Very good on the active setup with the Z6. The passives were made to get the flattest frequency response which usually isnt the best sounding.


Once again ... a passive network and an active network will apply the EXACT same phase shift (versus frequency), per-order of filter. Therefore, the passive network and active network will apply the EXACT same group delay (which is simply the first derivative of phase wrt to frequency). Therefore, the "influence" of the crossover on time alignment will be the EXACT same for an active and a passive.

No "sonic magic" associated with a passive, that is somehow "mysteriously absent" with an active


----------



## s4turn (Jun 17, 2009)

The-Big-Beat said:


> Passive crossovers dont change time alignment. And NO companies dont make x-overs to impress customers at a demo. Also . Very good on the active setup with the Z6. The passives were made to get the flattest frequency response which usually isnt the best sounding.


How can a company like Boston assume everyone cars, speaker positioning and placement is the same, Im sure it works, but not optimally for each car environment/setup, surely you must know that

I didnt mention time alignment either


----------



## lycan (Dec 20, 2009)

cajunner said:


> nobody has posted the truth yet.
> 
> haha...
> 
> the truth, is that you can filter passively with notch filters, compensation networks, ladders (don't know what that is, hahaha) baffle-step, and the almighty zobel, and an active crossover can't do any of that.


flat out, unequivocally WRONG.


> all an active crossover does, at it's most basic is allow you to adjust gain separately via the amp, and choose a frequency/slope.


And that's all that a "passive crossover" does. All the other stuff often associated with a "passive crossover", falls under the category of "passive equalization."


> There's no signal compensation for the various quirks the drivers come with, there's no optimizing for different things like diffraction or phase compensation, no tweeter protection, all these things have to be dealt with, with *active equalization.*


Could not possibly be any more *wrong*. ALL these things are not only possible, but in fact much more flexible AND accurate, with active equalization !!!! (except protecting a tweeter from a bad amp, or bad tuner).


> Now, with active equalization, combined with active crossovers, you get a much more even playing field when competing passives versus the active proposition.
> 
> However, some might not have active filtering in mind, so in this case, passives can be better.
> 
> One major caveat, is that if you are listening to the speakers in any type of configuration that is not ideal, (ideal being same plane, same axis from the listener) and expect your passive to still do all these compensation feats, then you're deluding yourself because the car interior is the dominant factor in what sound you get at the listening position.


Passive offers NO sonic benefits over active. NONE. There's nothing you can do with a passive ... including notch, baffle step compensation, phase compensation, etc ... that can't be done more easily, more accurately, and MUCH more flexibly with an active network.

What the hell are you guys reading?


----------



## ncv6coupe (Oct 25, 2009)

uumm, this is exactly why DIYma has the klippel and passive networks are AWESOME if you know where to place speakers in regards to time alignment.(home audio mentality) near field reflections are a b!tch, hello car audio gremlins

caj, can't believe you are playing devils advocate today, lol shame on you for the above^^^^^


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

lycan said:


> This post is so full of bullshyt it's hardly worth a response.
> 
> No, using a Zobel is not retarded ... providing that you UNDERSTAND ITS FUNCTION. All it does is flatten the impedance curve of a driver. This allows the passive crossover to behave as if its driving a resistive load ... thereby, behaving the way it's intended. That's it. No special "distortion magic". No special "efficiency magic". Just simple impedance compensation.
> 
> ...


Zobels do that. YES! And what do you think resistance does to sound? The idea is to get a FLAT impendance curve for the flattest sound reproduction. NO spikes. No dips. When speakers play, they play at all kinds of different resistance levels depending on the frequency its playing. If a speakers is not good ay playing at a certain frequency it creates distortion. So A zobel is used to fix the resistance (impedance). You say the Zobel helps the speaker to work as it is intended? You cant let a speaker just on a a table and play like a Orchestra. That is teh Intent we all strive for. Putting a speaker in a box, applying eq, placing a x-over all of this changes the SQ. The idea is to get the speaker to play within its capabilities. And a Zobel, with a correct slope and cutoff of frequencies does that. What is that intent?You says its not a ******** circuit but then suggest in so many words that it kinda is. So which is it? The amp has little to no effect on a speakers impedance reaction to music. The inductor of the voice coil does. The Zobel is made to either neutralize or magnify fluctuations created within the voice coil not he amp. When using a 12 db crossover the tweeter is usally required to be reversed in polarity due to the nature of the x-over. It doesnt matter if the xover is active or passive, this happens in all 12db slopes. Some do have moderate shifts depending on the type of slope, not the order of the slope One of the BEST SQ cars ever made had his tweeters pointed to the windshield. The teeters were out of phase and sounded wack. So he changed the x-over to give the tweeters the correct phase! You dont see that in active crossovers. Passives can be made to do many things, but get very expensive. Again. using an opamp or cap or inductor it doesnt matter. Time delays and phase shifts occur active and passive. Active is better for flexibility. I can change my slopes and points at any time on my deck. But Im referring to SQ at its highest level. And that cant be done in active in a car unless you have processors out the ass. Its really hard getting SQ in a car. Passive xovers cant fix it and certainly not actives. For eas of use and low costs go active. If you buy raw drivers and decide to build x-overs specifically for the drivers and not go active then you will have a long hard haul ahead of you to calculate and find and then buy the expensive parts. Then you gotta find a place to put the passives. As for as profit margin goes, you have little clue. The whol edam speaker is a hyped up marketing scheme. X-overs are usually NOT optimized and speakers usually all sound decent till you to the several hundred dollar mark. When you start getting arounf $500 you start seeing different cone material and zobel networks and high x-over slopes. Those materials COST! its isnt hype that high end poly caps are better. Its true. Just as High in air cor inductors are better that ferit core. Everything we buy is always marketed as something better than what it is. But just look at things in perspective. A x-over with poly caps is not worth $300. But a active x-over is? Come on. Im not a idiot. Active is just as hyped up as anything else. You just gotta find what is actually worth your time and money.


----------



## ncv6coupe (Oct 25, 2009)

cajunner said:


> If I were going to use a set of car speaker components to build a bookshelf in my home, I'd use the passives, because that's what the designer built them for, 99 times out of 100,*If I wanted a SQ system in my car* Then I'd throw those power-sapping pieces of **** into the closet and get busy with a couple of amps and nice active crossover.


FIXED


----------



## lycan (Dec 20, 2009)

The-Big-Beat said:


> Zobels do that. YES! And what do you think resistance does to sound? The idea is to get a FLAT impendance curve for the flattest sound reproduction. NO spikes. No dips. When speakers play, they play at all kinds of different resistance levels depending on the frequency its playing. If a speakers is not good ay playing at a certain frequency it creates distortion. So A zobel is used to fix the resistance (impedance). You say the Zobel helps the speaker to work as it is intended? You cant let a speaker just on a a table and play like a Orchestra. That is teh Intent we all strive for. Putting a speaker in a box, applying eq, placing a x-over all of this changes the SQ. The idea is to get the speaker to play within its capabilities. And a Zobel, with a correct slope and cutoff of frequencies does that. What is that intent?You says its not a ******** circuit but then suggest in so many words that it kinda is. So which is it? The amp has little to no effect on a speakers impedance reaction to music. The inductor of the voice coil does. The Zobel is made to either neutralize or magnify fluctuations created within the voice coil not he amp. When using a 12 db crossover the tweeter is usally required to be reversed in polarity due to the nature of the x-over. It doesnt matter if the xover is active or passive, this happens in all 12db slopes. Some do have moderate shifts depending on the type of slope, not the order of the slope One of the BEST SQ cars ever made had his tweeters pointed to the windshield. The teeters were out of phase and sounded wack. So he changed the x-over to give the tweeters the correct phase! You dont see that in active crossovers. Passives can be made to do many things, but get very expensive. Again. using an opamp or cap or inductor it doesnt matter. Time delays and phase shifts occur active and passive. Active is better for flexibility. I can change my slopes and points at any time on my deck. But Im referring to SQ at its highest level. And that cant be done in active in a car unless you have processors out the ass. Its really hard getting SQ in a car. Passive xovers cant fix it and certainly not actives. For eas of use and low costs go active. If you buy raw drivers and decide to build x-overs specifically for the drivers and not go active then you will have a long hard haul ahead of you to calculate and find and then buy the expensive parts. Then you gotta find a place to put the passives. As for as profit margin goes, you have little clue. The whol edam speaker is a hyped up marketing scheme. X-overs are usually NOT optimized and speakers usually all sound decent till you to the several hundred dollar mark. When you start getting arounf $500 you start seeing different cone material and zobel networks and high x-over slopes. Those materials COST! its isnt hype that high end poly caps are better. Its true. Just as High in air cor inductors are better that ferit core. Everything we buy is always marketed as something better than what it is. But just look at things in perspective. A x-over with poly caps is not worth $300. But a active x-over is? Come on. Im not a idiot. Active is just as hyped up as anything else. You just gotta find what is actually worth your time and money.


this is such pure nonsense, it hurts my head to even read it 

genius ... the Zobel helps THE CROSSOVER to work the way it's intended. It doesn't magically help the speaker ... it helps the CROSSOVER, by presenting the passive crossover network with something closer to a resistive load. (yes, that also "helps" the speaker, by giving it the intended roll-off behavior, similar to ... wait for it ... an ACTIVE crossover!)

It's not needed with an active xover ... and NO, that's not an "advantage" of the passive. Quite the opposite ... it's a _disadvantage_ of the passive.

please stop.

i sense ... another candidate for the *ignore* list


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

lycan said:


> Also, regarding the crap about "high end speakers using passive networks" ... please visit the Linkwitz Orion, and tell us about the passive crossovers used in that design
> 
> Siegfried Linkwitz knows more about speakers than all of us combined ... including anyone even _mentioned_ in this thread.
> 
> So please, cut the crap about the "sonic magic" of passive networks. Go find a more gullible audience.


Maybe YOU should reread that website. Cause in there tells us how the active crossovers they like to see, use notch filters, equalization filters, delay circuits. All in active platforms. Yea you can do ALLL that in passive but when you can fit all that circuitry in the palm of your hand why do passive when passive takes a table space to make these filters useable in a speaker system. Not to mention the COST! Poly caps are several dollars. You can buy cards that slip into computers kinda LIKE THE OLD FOSGATE SYMETRY, for dollars Active Filters DUH! I also dont think Im nearly as educated as these guys on that website. But I do have 20 years of knowledge and have built a few x-overs. Some of which have made many people WOW in there experience. So Im not a idiot. Have you made any passives? Oh.. I see. Its more flexible and easier for you to push a button on your stereo to adjust the x-over...:surprised:


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

Why Big Beat won't get it........

Confirmation Bias « You Are Not So Smart


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

lycan said:


> Once again ... a passive network and an active network will apply the EXACT same phase shift (versus frequency), per-order of filter. Therefore, the passive network and active network will apply the EXACT same group delay (which is simply the first derivative of phase wrt to frequency). Therefore, the "influence" of the crossover on time alignment will be the EXACT same for an active and a passive.
> 
> No "sonic magic" associated with a passive, that is somehow "mysteriously absent" with an active


YOU CONTRADICT YOUR SELF BUDDY> You keep saying Active doesnt have any anomolies and is better than passive. But here you say the circuits do the same! DING DING! The statement is correct! I keep saying that they both have phase shifts and other anomilies. Only reason I keep saying that is cause you say they dont! but here you just said they do! WTH?


----------



## lycan (Dec 20, 2009)

The-Big-Beat said:


> Maybe YOU should reread that website. Cause in there tells us how the active crossovers they like to see, use notch filters, equalization filters, delay circuits. All in active platforms.


umm ... yeah ... and THIS somehow supports YOUR argument that passives are better because of their "sonic magic"???

Dude ... seriously ... an ultra-knowledgeable speaker guy like Linkwitz using active networks does NOT support your position about the "magic" of passive networks. Are you really too blind to understand when an argument *doesn't* support your position?



> Yea you can do ALLL that in passive but when you can fit all that circuitry in the palm of your hand why do passive when passive takes a table space to make these filters useable in a speaker system. Not to mention the COST! Poly caps are several dollars. You can buy cards that slip into computers kinda LIKE THE OLD FOSGATE SYMETRY, for dollars Active Filters DUH! I also dont think Im nearly as educated as these guys on that website. But I do have 20 years of knowledge and have built a few x-overs. Some of which have made many people WOW in there experience. So Im not a idiot. Have you made any passives? Oh.. I see. Its more flexible and easier for you to push a button on your stereo to adjust the x-over...:surprised:


Yes ... more passives than I can count. More actives than YOU can count. And I've designed more opamps for audio applications than EITHER of us can count.

So what?

*There's nothing about the "sound" of a passive network that can't be duplicated ... more easily, and more flexibly for YOUR environment ... with an active network.*

Try to prove me wrong ... PLEASE.


----------



## ncv6coupe (Oct 25, 2009)

wow, Big beat, I'm a passive lover also but you are thinking too much about a 24x36 FOOT living room in this argument which is leading you down the road of FAIL. Just giving you a heads up man.


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

lycan said:


> flat out, unequivocally WRONG.
> 
> And that's all that a "passive crossover" does. All the other stuff often associated with a "passive crossover", falls under the category of "passive equalization."
> Could not possibly be any more *wrong*. ALL these things are not only possible, but in fact much more flexible AND accurate, with active equalization !!!! (except protecting a tweeter from a bad amp, or bad tuner).
> ...


No benefits? Geez... I guess that website you referred to is all lies? What the hell you think all them notch filters and zobels and slopes do? Just protect a tweeter? Active and passive CAN do the same thing. But Like you said. ACTIVES are more flixible! (they just need a dial or a button to adjust plus shave many frequencies and slopes you can adjust at the tip on your finger) And as I SAID. LESS Expensive than passives! Passives are a one slope one frequency cutoff network that is NOT flexible There is no adjusting unless you have an attentuation switch.


----------



## lycan (Dec 20, 2009)

The-Big-Beat said:


> YOU CONTRADICT YOUR SELF BUDDY> You keep saying Active doesnt have any anomolies and is better than passive. But here you say the circuits do the same! DING DING! The statement is correct! I keep saying that they both have phase shifts and other anomilies. Only reason I keep saying that is cause you say they dont! but here you just said they do! WTH?


what an idiot !!!!

Show me where i said they both don't have phase shifts. I had to correct you ... more than once ... when you suggested that a passive phase shift was somehow "better" or "different" than an active.

YOU said passive sounds better because of "magic", all the R&D invested, distortions, efficiencies, blah blah blah. ALL of it pure nonsense.

The advantage of an active is its flexibility ... it can easily be TUNED to your environment, UNLIKE the "magic passive" supplied with the car audio drivers.

*I said there's nothing a passive can do, that can't be done MORE EASILY and MORE FLEXIBLY with an active.*

Prove me wrong.


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

cajunner said:


> you make a tomato a toh, mah, toe?
> 
> haha..
> 
> ...


THANK YOU!


----------



## lycan (Dec 20, 2009)

The-Big-Beat said:


> No benefits? Geez... I guess that website you referred to is all lies? What the hell you think all them notch filters and zobels and slopes do? Just protect a tweeter? Active and passive CAN do the same thing. But Like you said. ACTIVES are more flixible! (they just need a dial or a button to adjust plus shave many frequencies and slopes you can adjust at the tip on your finger) And as I SAID. LESS Expensive than passives! Passives are a one slope one frequency cutoff network that is NOT flexible There is no adjusting unless you have an attentuation switch.


please stop arguing in circles.

You can't even tell when evidence does NOT support your position about the "magic passives".

NOBODY ever said a notch (for example) is not needed. I've stated that it is not only possible ... but easier, and more accurate, to build it ACTIVELY.

YOU are the one desparately clinging to the unique "magic" of passive networks.

*There's nothing a passive network can do, that can't be done MORE EASILY and MORE FLEXIBLY with an active. No "magic sonic attributes" of a passive over an active*.

Prove me wrong.


----------



## ncv6coupe (Oct 25, 2009)

cajunner said:


> I just want some good even sound, and I want a simple setup. Well, that passive that came with the set is sure sounding pretty good about now...
> 
> of course, that's not me, but it's describing quite a few out there, trust me.
> 
> ...


yep, can't argue with you there, and that is fine and well until you put BOTH front seats back in a car that has a center console hump with plastic panels running down the transmission tunnel and you have lower door midbass/midranges then you sit in the driver seat in ready to drive position with legs fully extended, one on the dead pedal and the other for gas/brake.  *Active is passive and passive is active until you determine that listening space/mandatory non-defeatable EQ*. Thats how i always knew it to be and thats what big beat doesn't quite yet understand here on DIYMobileA.


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

lycan said:


> this is such pure nonsense, it hurts my head to even read it
> 
> genius ... the Zobel helps THE CROSSOVER to work the way it's intended. It doesn't magically help the speaker ... it helps the CROSSOVER, by presenting the passive crossover network with something closer to a resistive load. (yes, that also "helps" the speaker, by giving it the intended roll-off behavior, similar to ... wait for it ... an ACTIVE crossover!)
> 
> ...


 Isnt that called censorship? Im just saying what is correct. Dont let my words be hidden from OTHERS. Let them formulate there own opinion. Even if I am wrong so be it. But dam! I wouldnt cast out a persons ideas just cause I dont agree with them. Thats such a childish motion...


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

ncv6coupe said:


> yep, can't argue with you there, and that is fine and well until you put BOTH front seats back in a car that has a center console hump with plastic panels running down the transmission tunnel and you have lower door midbass/midranges then you sit in the driver seat in ready to drive position with legs fully extended, one on the dead pedal and the other for gas/brake.  *Active is passive and passive is active until you determine that listening space/mandatory non-defeatable EQ*. Thats how i always knew it to be and thats what big beat doesn't quite yet understand here on DIYMobileA.


NO NO I DO GET THAT. ANd what I fully stand behind and actually use is a passive x-over on my speakers with a active time delay setup to compensate for those reflections and odd speaker distances.


----------



## lycan (Dec 20, 2009)

The-Big-Beat said:


> Isnt that called censorship? Im just saying what is correct. Dont let my words be hidden from OTHERS. Let them formulate there own opinion. Even if I am wrong so be it. But dam! I wouldnt cast out a persons ideas just cause I dont agree with them. Thats such a childish motion... I can see you are all pissy now for no good reason. So ill leave this alone and just say... Have a good day


idiot ... the ignore list just means that your posts will be hidden FROM ME.

That way, my head won't try to explode from reading your nonsense.

Others will still be free to try to make sense of your gibberish about the unparalleled "magic" of passive networks.

In fact, i'll add you right now


----------



## ncv6coupe (Oct 25, 2009)

or you can have a really cool trunk floor where you will definately use every last sq cm of it to connect your seperate L/R passive filters you will have to connect to get the response even enough to have a flat sound stage in the car with only a 2 channel amp and 4 speakers hell 6 with a 3-way frontstage compared to a 8 inch black box under the passenger seat. Hope you have a heated garage because the moisture in your trunk WILL kill that passive crossover after its first winter season.


----------



## Cruzer (Jul 16, 2010)

passive components + time alignment = active setup? is that what ur saying?


----------



## ncv6coupe (Oct 25, 2009)

The-Big-Beat said:


> NO NO I DO GET THAT. ANd what I fully stand behind and actually use is a passive x-over on my speakers with a active time delay setup to compensate for those reflections and odd speaker distances.


I think you are cheating us, Heres the MONEY QUESTION that lycan really wanted to get out of you, what kind of EQ you running? and if you say none then I might have to call you a (home audio audiophile) liar


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

Cruzer said:


> passive components + time alignment = active setup? is that what ur saying?


no. im saying i like using both....


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

ncv6coupe said:


> I think you are cheating us, Heres the MONEY QUESTION that lycan really wanted to get out of you, what kind of EQ you running? and if you say none then I might have to call you a (home audio audiophile) liar


I use a Alpine 9887 for its basic EQ and active crossver for subs and cutoff on the mids. The mids and tweeters have there factory passives installed. I could use all active like I was but liked the sound the passives gave. Passives DONT offer a cutoff on the mids that cut out bass so I use the active on the Alpine. Im not saying Active SUCKS. Im saying passives DONT suck and ARENT JUST Marketing hype. All I been saying is that I promote both! I just dont like it when a person states saying Passive is useless and Active is superior. I thinks that is incorrect. They both have there superiority and both have the drawbacks...


----------



## ncv6coupe (Oct 25, 2009)

The-Big-Beat said:


> I use a Alpine 9887 for its basic EQ and active crossver for subs and cutoff on the mids. The mids and tweeters have there factory passives installed. I could use all active like I was but liked the sound the passives gave. Passives DONT offer a cutoff on the mids that cut out bass so I use the active on the Alpine. Im not saying Active SUCKS. Im saying passives DONT suck and ARENT JUST Marketing hype. All I been saying is that I promote both! I just dont like it when a person states saying Passive is useless and Active is superior. I thinks that is incorrect. They both have there superiority and both have the drawbacks...


finally coming clean, too bad you got the guy who may have helped to pioneer the components in your 9887 pissed off that if you had any electrical questions he won't help you, point is dude, if you started your install from scratch with 20 years of passive crossover building, and you use a regular cd player with a headphone output jack to rca cables and daisy chain 2 amps, a single 2 channel and a single mono for sub, oh wait, you need time alignment? oh yeah, you can build that passively with a 1ms delay so get out the tape measure and pick your speaker locations carefully, ok where was I? now you go to parts express and start ordering all those inductors, capacitors, resistors and order your wife to stay with family for a year cause thats how long it will take you to design your system then you install it in the car add up the cost of those 15 pound inductors you will need for the 24db sub crossovers and EQ boost/cuts, damn i'm tired, all passive systems in the car just aren't feasible EVER. unless you drive a f1 car dude with the Subwoofer in the nose cone and four 2" aura whispers in the rear view mirrors. You definately made the day today, and it's not okay around here to use comments like if i'm wrong so be it let people make their own decisions. the "TRUTH" is the only thing that flies, non-clear internet opinions sure do more harm than good anywhere. Not against you just want you to understand that most here are DIY guys but there is a time and place to throw in the towel and car audio is one of those places for home audio speak 

btw, half of my system is passive but it's taken me VERY VERY long to get it completed and I still have to run 5 amps in the end. I did back track some and put in another dsp because of the handicapped "stereo" mobile audio environment.


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

ncv6coupe said:


> finally coming clean, too bad you got the guy who may have helped to pioneer the components in your 9887 pissed off that if you had any electrical questions he won't help you, point is dude, if you started your install from scratch with 20 years of passive crossover building, and you use a regular cd player with a headphone output jack to rca cables and daisy chain 2 amps, a single 2 channel and a single mono for sub, oh wait, you need time alignment? oh yeah, you can build that passively with a 1ms delay so get out the tape measure and pick your speaker locations carefully, ok where was I? now you go to parts express and start ordering all those inductors, capacitors, resistors and order your wife to stay with family for a year cause thats how long it will take you to design your system then you install it in the car add up the cost of those 15 pound inductors you will need for the 24db sub crossovers and EQ boost/cuts, damn i'm tired, all passive systems in the car just aren't feasible EVER. unless you drive a f1 car dude with the Subwoofer in the nose cone and four 2" aura whispers in the rear view mirrors. You definately made the day today, and it's not okay around here to use comments like if i'm wrong so be it let people make their own decisions. the "TRUTH" is the only thing that flies, non-clear internet opinions sure do more harm than good anywhere. Not against you just want you to understand that most here are DIY guys but there is a time and place to throw in the towel and car audio is one of those places for home audio speak


What ever you just said has nothing to do with me. I didnt come clean. Im not hiding anything. The point of this whole thread was about the so called useless capabilities of a passive crossover. I stated the passive is NOT usless. I use passives. I also use actives cause they are flexible and easy to use and adjust. So WTH is your problem? No dont answer that. It seems ever forum has a bully and this forum sure does have a few. I seem to always end up being in a shoving match with somebody here cause they dont fully comprehend what Im saying. The word "Finally come clean" suggest Im some liar and some deviant person that conned someone. All i did was point out the pros and conns and equals of passives and active systems. Im just shakin my head at how pissy you guys get for the simplest things. And No i dont plan on asking for the dudes help. Im more than adequate.


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

cajunner said:


> I can't even get it right.
> 
> okay, here's a question for everybody with more knowledge than time, but cares anyway:
> 
> ...


I got the sarcasm and you are correct. Its what I been trying to say all along.


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

cajunner said:


> this is old school, using home audio principles in the car. You do get it, but because you're rooted in passive crossover design theory and haven't evolved yet to the digitized real-time scape, you choose to piggy back active and passive filtering components together to accomplish what can be done all in the digital domain.


Wait hold on. Piggy back? LOl Look. Seriously. We STILL HAVE TO USE THE ACTIVE when using the passive cause no passive x-overs come with bass blockers. the only way to take teh bass out of teh mids is with active filters. I could go make one but why? Its costs too much. takes too much space and time. THUS the flexibility of the active! I can choose 80, 90, 100, 120hz cutoff in 6,12, 18 or 24bd octave ranges on my 9887.


----------



## cubdenno (Nov 10, 2007)

Dammit!! I just wasted 10 minutes reading this thread.

Cruzer,

Active systems means a speaker gets it's own amp channel. Thats it. It can have either passive crossovers on each speaker after the amp, active crossovers before the amplification or a combination of both.


----------



## Cruzer (Jul 16, 2010)

cubdenno said:


> Dammit!! I just wasted 10 minutes reading this thread.
> 
> Cruzer,
> 
> Active systems means a speaker gets it's own amp channel. Thats it. It can have either passive crossovers on each speaker after the amp, active crossovers before the amplification or a combination of both.


i know i know, big beat knew exactly what i meant by my question and answered it just as i wanted


----------



## ncv6coupe (Oct 25, 2009)

The-Big-Beat said:


> Wait hold on. Piggy back? LOl Look. Seriously. We STILL HAVE TO USE THE ACTIVE when using the passive cause *no passive x-overs come with bass blockers*. t*he only way to take teh bass out of teh mids is with active filters*. I could go make one but why? Its costs too much. takes too much space and time. THUS the flexibility of the active! I can choose 80, 90, 100, 120hz cutoff in 6,12, 18 or 24bd octave ranges on my 9887.


 so why does boston acoustics recommend passive crossovers again? I hope I'm not the bully you speak(far from it, I never argue and I definately have no e-thuggyness in me) but if you go passive then it's ALL PASSIVE OR BUST and you said passive does "sonic magic." Thats why you seem to be on the other end of the agreement list in the debate, I reread the whole thread and you started the debate with an all passive stance then you said what you said above. Thats all everyone was waiting for. The "TRUTH" which is still filled with the WTF COMMENTS THAT ARE BOLDED


----------



## lycan (Dec 20, 2009)

You guys should all step back, and look at this one step at a time.

First, consider any possible "sonic advantages" of passive versus active :

1. Need a 6dB/octave, 12dB/octave, 18dB/octave, or 24dB/octave crossover? You can accomplish ALL or ANY of them with an active OR passive crossover. HOWEVER ... if you want accurate, well-behaved roll-off in your _passive crossover_, you better consider a Zobel for impedance compensation. There's no other benefit to a Zobel. You simply don't need a Zobel when going active, because the driver's impedance variation with frequency will have ZERO impact on the crossover behavior with active filtering. NOTE : the need for, or presence of, a Zobel is not NOT *NOT* an "advantage" of the passive.

2. Need a notch filter to tame a cone resonance? *You can accomplish it with EITHER an active or a passive network*. The active will probably be more accurate, and will probably drift less with temperature.

3. Want to provide baffle step compensation? *You can accomplish it with EITHER an active or a passive network*.

4. Don't like the phase response of an xdB/octave filter (which you will get with EITHER an active, or passive filter) and you want to provide phase compensation? *You can accomplish it with EITHER an active or a passive network*.

5. Worried a little bit about intermod distortion? FINE. ME TOO. Active wins, hands down. The midbass amp that's driven close to (or beyond) clipping will have ZERO impact on your tweeter with an active setup. Not true with a passive.

*CONCLUSION* : There are ZERO sonic benefits provided by a passive network, compared to an active network. Anything a passive can do, can be equaled by an active filter. In fact, the active filter will provide the following SONIC benefits OVER a passive :

- tunability, for YOUR environment that was NOT the design environment for the passive
- more freedom from intermod distortion
- _probably_ less drift with temperature, less component variation and less component interaction (you DID mount those large, air-core passive coils at right angles to each other, didn't you? And you DID re-measure your inductance, after you mounted it close to a large metal surface ... right?)

*Are there ANY benefits to a passive? Maybe ... but exactly NONE of them have anything to do with "the sound" :*

- tweeter protection from a bad amp or dumbass tuner
- cost (possibly), because you don't need extra amp & processor channels ... but this benefit quickly evaporates, if you buy into voodoo audiophile lingo associated with "magic" passive components and spend megabux on them

Now, back to the original question of the thread :

*Since it is now clear that the passive provides ZERO sonic benefits over an active, why would a manufacturer of car audio drivers strongly recommend their passives, and try hard to steer you away from active?*

NO SONIC BENEFITS TO THE PASSIVE.

*NO MAGIC SONIC BENEFITS TO THE PASSIVE.*

maybe now, it makes more sense to re-read some of my earlier posts in this thread.

*NO MAGIC SONIC BENEFITS TO THE PASSIVE.*

but what happens to the company's revenue and profit, if they're not selling passives ... which were NOT designed for your environment, and *which provide no magic sonic benefits* ... with their drivers?


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

cubdenno said:


> Dammit!! I just wasted 10 minutes reading this thread.
> 
> Cruzer,
> 
> Active systems means a speaker gets it's own amp channel. Thats it. It can have either passive crossovers on each speaker after the amp, active crossovers before the amplification or a combination of both.


Umm. No...Active means it has electricity. passive means its powerless.


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

cajunner said:


> no, I mean you're piggy-backing time alignment/delay, which is an active processing technology, on to passive crossover component speaker parts.
> 
> What I stated had nothing to do with the use of active crossover for the midbass/sub transition, that's a different set up, and one which can be done completely passive as well, depending on how much complexity one wishes to involve oneself with.
> 
> time delay is digital, if you're using it then you probably have other things going on, as evidenced by your 9887's tone shaping features that come with the time-alignment feature. This is all digital domain, active processing, so really by saying you use the passives on your mid/tweeter crossover region, you omit the relevant information that you still have active filtering going on in the digital domain that helps those passive crossovers achieve a better sounding set-up.


I dont use the time alignment. I just use the EQ and x-over. And even if I did use the time alignment that wouldne be piggy backing anything. Passive crossovers DONT fix time alignment. They can fix phase shifts. Or also known as out of phase speakers. Example. A speakers sounds not right. the bass is lacking or the tweeters sound odd. You cant add 10ms of time delay on a speaker by using a passive x-over. I think you are mis understanding things like the rest of them.


----------



## ncv6coupe (Oct 25, 2009)

lycan said:


> *Since it is now clear that the passive provides ZERO sonic benefits over an active, why would a manufacturer of car audio drivers strongly recommend their passives, and try hard to steer you away from active?*
> 
> NO SONIC BENEFITS TO THE PASSIVE.
> 
> ...


then you go into the business of selling magic "UPSTAGE KITS" with regular sonic passive crossovers silly wolfman


----------



## ncv6coupe (Oct 25, 2009)

cajunner said:


> and, the consensus of theory that has the Zobel making it easier for the amplifier to drive a circuit at reasonable impedance levels, makes it hard to understand how a Zobel's use is committed to correcting the resistance path of the passive crossover components. This I still don't understand, as it's always been drilled that an amplifier that runs in 4 ohm operation is going to put out more power than one running at 40 ohms near resonance..
> 
> and an active does nothing for the amplifier, in that respect. Is it that the efficiency rise near resonance is a function of it's impedance rise, and therefore the additional "ease" with which the amplifier can control the speaker by operating near it's optimum bias, is nullified by cancelling each other's effects out?
> 
> ...


a zobel is similar to an AP membrane, it just works to keep the crossover point gain low so as not to have a wondering image caj and you basically just answered yourself above. we all know time alignment is LINEAR phase and thats all their is to it. but back to the reflection thing again, home audio is easy, car audio needs science and Lycan to help us understand it better with the "TRUTH"


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

ncv6coupe said:


> so why does boston acoustics recommend passive crossovers again? I hope I'm not the bully you speak(far from it, I never argue and I definately have no e-thuggyness in me) but if you go passive then it's ALL PASSIVE OR BUST and you said passive does "sonic magic." Thats why you seem to be on the other end of the agreement list in the debate, I reread the whole thread and you started the debate with an all passive stance then you said what you said above. Thats all everyone was waiting for. The "TRUTH" which is still filled with the WTF COMMENTS THAT ARE BOLDED



Um no. I said passive crossovers are not always all hype. Ill say this all over again.. sigh...... Speakers , particularly high end speakers usually come with expensive passive crossovers. Some dude said the x-overs are usually all hype and useless so he claims active x-overs are far better than passive. I said I disagree. It may be true in one or 2 situations. Actives have easier adjustments and have more points and slopes to play with. Less expensive and you dont need to know how to build them. Actives are an all around general purpose tools. Passives can be also be an all around general use tool for low end and mid end speakers but not for high end due to the SQ your trying to achieve. When buying a high end speaker such as the SPZ series, Boston decided to bring out the best in the speakers by making a special crossover that helps the speaker perform at there very best. That best to them may not be the best sounding to you, But measurements show that using the x-over they come with gives them the best frequency response. Zobels and notch filters and other circuits DO help the speakers. Whether you hear it or not or even like the way it performs with these circuits is your opinion. But to the speaker these networks make it sing! Actives are like an all in one tool kit where ass passive for high end are a specific tool used to get teh job done right. Most passive x-overs are hype. But not all of them. CDT has a line of speakers that use special networks to create a better sound stage. is that hype? Some say it isnt. Its your decision. But I say passive crossovers can make a speaker sound better by using special circuits that Active x-overs dont have. Circuits like attentuation, zobel etc etc. You can have a passive and active system. Most people do!. The passive crossovers that come with speakers dont have a cutoff for bass but has taken the music and seperated the mids and highs. Even a home stereo surround system has active x-overs for subwoofers and to cut the bass out of the main speakers. But the main and surround speakers have to have passive x-overs to seperate the music to the correct mid and tweeter driver. In high end speakers these passive crossovers use special computer optimized crossovers that match the characteristics of the drivers. These passive x=overs dont just seperate music like the cheapo passive you see in most speaker packages.. And an active x-over cant do zobel, attentuation etc etc. Unless its a very very expensive active system. I surely hope after reading this that I cleared up the misunderstanding. And about the bully thing I mentioned? When a person startes taking replys personal and calls people stupid and etc etc then yea. its getting stupid. I didnt pick any particular person but go back and read and you can see who is taking it personal. Its just a forum people.


----------



## lycan (Dec 20, 2009)

cajunner said:


> you would have to custom build an active network to do all those things, I don't know anybody who would attempt it, unless they had some prior knowledge of opamps and...


Why not buy a Zapco processor (for example) for various crossover filter orders, shelving filters (for baffle step compensation or linkwitz transformers), notches, parametric EQ ... you won't even need to visit radio shack.


> and, a passive can be constructed using parts from radio shack, following simple directions and using a hot iron with pieces attached to a board of mdf instead of a pcb or bread board.


easy of construction? that's a clever benefit 

passives allow you to be stupider, and lazier?


> and, the consensus of theory that has the Zobel making it easier for the amplifier to drive a circuit at reasonable impedance levels, makes it hard to understand how a Zobel's use is committed to correcting the resistance path of the passive crossover components. This I still don't understand, as it's always been drilled that an amplifier that runs in 4 ohm operation is going to put out more power than one running at 40 ohms near resonance..


The Zobel is connected IN PARALLEL with the driver. Yes, the voltage source amplifier will put out more power when you shunt the driver with a Zobel. Where do you think that "extra" power is going ... to the driver, or the Zobel?

Guys ... there's just no "magic" with a damn Zobel. It corrects the impedance variation of the driver, allowing the passive crossover to behave according to its intended, resisitively-loaded design goal. End of story.

*The BEST you can hope for ... with all the "magic" driver impedance compensation in the world ... is for the identical crossover voltage AT THE DRIVER'S TERMINALS, that would be provided by an active crossover (operating in conjunction with a low-output-impedance amplifier, of course). That's ALL you're trying to do with Zobels, or any other speaker impedance compensation network ... you're HOPING to achieve that which the active filter gives you by default.*


> and an active does nothing for the amplifier, in that respect. Is it that the efficiency rise near resonance is a function of it's impedance rise, and therefore the additional "ease" with which the amplifier can control the speaker by operating near it's optimum bias, is nullified by cancelling each other's effects out?
> 
> I don't know. I do know that even when bi-amping/actively crossing over, most speaker companies want you to use some passive components to keep certain aspects of the circuit in some fashion, and not just to save tweeters, for the midrange too.


Pure ********. Stop buying into the marketing hype.

Nothing "magic" about passives between amplifiers and drivers.


> I might go look it up just to spring it on lycan, and see what he thinks of it.


Bring it.


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

cajunner said:


> ummm, no.
> 
> passive can mean active, as in passive equalizer.
> 
> it's not always about the powered or non-powered with the definitions.




LOL A passive eq is an eq with no power. It uses resistors, caps and whetever else to make the sound change. But it doesnt need voltage. Why else would it be called passive? a passive radiator is a speaker with no power. A passive x-over is a xover with no power. a passive person is a person with no emotion...


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

ncv6coupe said:


> a zobel is similar to an AP membrane, it just works to keep the crossover point gain low so as not to have a wondering image caj and you basically just answered yourself above. we all know time alignment is LINEAR phase and thats all their is to it. but back to the reflection thing again, home audio is easy, car audio needs science and Lycan to help us understand it better with the "TRUTH"


LOL .. Always nice to have a cult following. Lycan must be proud. Phase shifts are not the same as time alignment. You people make things so much hard then it really is. Its like your trying to make an arguement.


----------



## ncv6coupe (Oct 25, 2009)

The-Big-Beat said:


> Speakers, particularly high end speakers usually come with expensive passive crossovers.
> *i would hope so since i spent soo much money for it but my 50 dollar speakers still sound the same when i put it behind that plastic door panel on the flexible door metal and put some good kickdrum through it*
> 
> Some dude said the x-overs are usually all hype and useless so he claims active x-overs are far better than passive.*he never said that but he was clearly drawing the line between home audio setups and car audio setups*
> ...


it is just a forum but we like to get everything clear for the people who may read this and really need true help. I won't comment on the CDT thing because i already did earlier, maybe you missed it, but i hope that you see that even though things did get heated, this all boils down to passive "equalization" which is 50 fold harder than active and a crossover is just that, it blocks bass or mids or highs nothing else. I think we may have gotten sidetracked earlier but the pre-made expensive passive crossovers with the built in equalizers will get stomped Actively everyday all day when you put those speakers 55 inches away from the closest sidewall in ANY ROOM in a leaky box .7cu enclosure(car door).


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

lycan said:


> You guys should all step back, and look at this one step at a time.
> 
> First, consider any possible "sonic advantages" of passive versus active :
> 
> ...


1) heres a quote from this website about Zobel networks. "Remember that once a Zobel or notch filter has been determined for a driver, that becomes part of the driver. The network and driver must be treated as one, since the network's purpose is to remove some objectionable characteristic of the attached driver - most commonly unwanted impedance variations." its saying a zobel is for the speakers unwanted characteristics not the xover. wether you use an active or passive -xover the driver has unwanted characteristics the zobel fixes. You are wrong. Zobels do help.
2)Same quote can be used for a notch filter. 
3)Sorry, my x-overs on the 9887 dont have zobel correction. notch or any type of compensation. Wrong again. You can make an active x-over do anything a passive can but again, most dont! Thats why passives are used. 
4) Time alignment and phase shifts are too different situations that are fixed by 2 different utilities. A passive can fix phase. Not time. Active overs are accompanied by an time alignment tool in my 9887. But it is not a part of the x-over. its a totally different utility.
5)You kinda got me confused about the whining the way you worded it. Whining noises such as alternator whine is due to a difference in ground resistance from amp to source. Or source to other active components. Passive units dont use power so they dont cause ground loops. You can have a ground noise from active xovers.
You mentioned just one thing so far that a Active X-over can do better than a passive. That is tunability. Or flexibility as you called it earlier.
You really do beleive what you are saying. I can see this clearly now. of all the websites that talk about the x-over and zobel and other circuits being used on speakers to benefit sound, you LOl you have miraculously made a decision that its all ******** and they have somehow made these circuits just to make money! wow! Amazing! Just for your info. Zobels are used in all kinds of diff applications. One being the use on telephone lines so we can hear phone calls better... But I guess Bell labs just wanted extra money from the consumers when they told use that a zobel weill be used in there phone lines.. Wait.. Nope I dont think any marking was used. They just did it cause it actually helped!


----------



## ncv6coupe (Oct 25, 2009)

The-Big-Beat said:


> LOL .. Always nice to have a cult following. Lycan must be proud. Phase shifts are not the same as time alignment. You people make things so much hard then it really is. Its like your trying to make an arguement.


so what is time alignment? if I'm wrong let me know so i can stop spreading myths. and I won't comment on the cult comment. I have built a few passive components myself so I understand this topic dear to my heart, lycan understands it better than 98% of anyone on this forum unfortunately that may include both you and I also.  We are glad to pick his brain in every oppurtunity because we apply the principals and get sweet sound and he doesnt' have to touch a single speaker to break it all down for us here. Its called respect for knowledge and advancement in something lots of us love. Sound


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

cajunner said:


> A passive eq is an eq that requires power to operate, in 12 volt world.
> 
> when people sell passive equalizers on fleabay, they aren't selling passive crossover components, or they'll specify that.
> 
> ...


We cant go making up our own definitions. Exactly what passive means is "influenced, acted upon, or affected by some external force, cause, or agency; being the object of action rather than causing action ( opposed to active). " See HERE
I know what Im talking about.


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

ncv6coupe said:


> so what is time alignment? if I'm wrong let me know so i can stop spreading myths. and I won't comment on the cult comment. I have built a few passive components myself so I understand this topic dear to my heart, lycan understands it better than 98% of anyone on this forum unfortunately that may include both you and I also.  We are glad to pick his brain in every oppurtunity because we apply the principals and get sweet sound and he doesnt' have to touch a single speaker to break it all down for us here. Its called respect for knowledge and advancement in something lots of us love. Sound


LOl Lycan dont know what I know apparently. Ill paint ANOTHER PICTURE> your on a beach. You watch as the waves float into the sand. Some hit each other and become one wave. some hit each other and go opposite directions. That is phase shift. Some waves hit each other and slow down. and some speed up. That is time alignment. 
You need to very different tools to fix time alignment and phase shift. You can have both happening at the same time.


----------



## lycan (Dec 20, 2009)

ncv6coupe said:


> so what is time alignment? if I'm wrong let me know so i can stop spreading myths. and I won't comment on the cult comment. I have built a few passive components myself so I understand this topic dear to my heart, lycan understands it better than 98% of anyone on this forum unfortunately that may include both you and I also.  We are glad to pick his brain in every oppurtunity because we apply the principals and get sweet sound and he doesnt' have to touch a single speaker to break it all down for us here. Its called respect for knowledge and advancement in something lots of us love. Sound


time and phase are *NOT* the same thing.

time delay and linear phase shift *ARE* the same thing.

and yes, these two statements are absolutely true, whether or not the network is active or passive ... even if the passive is a "magic" one 

trust me guys ... the ignore list is a beautiful thing 

in the meantime ... sit back and watch, while the words i've written in this post are misunderstood, and mis-quoted, too.


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

cajunner said:


> passive equalizer, came about as a result of equalizer/boosters.
> 
> to differentiate between the two, the one that didn't have speaker outputs, were called passive equalizers.
> 
> ...


Ahh yes.. This is true... Bravo.... 
Car audio has a way with some terms that would confuse people. 
Another term similar is an active deck!. It has no power . An amp is required to power speakers.
But the true meaning is that a passive unit has no power at all. No voltage anywhere. Not just amplification. These days we see terms being coined and misused, then, ultimately adopted and overtime accepted as the norm when it shouldnt be.


----------



## ncv6coupe (Oct 25, 2009)

The-Big-Beat said:


> LOl Lycan dont know what I know apparently. Ill paint ANOTHER PICTURE> your on a beach. You watch as the waves float into the sand. Some hit each other and become one wave. some hit each other and go opposite directions. That is phase shift. Some waves hit each other and slow down. and some speed up. That is time alignment.
> You need to very different tools to fix time alignment and phase shift. You can have both happening at the same time.


Your water is tainted dude! That's called wave propagation and if you want to get scientific, its really constructive and destructive INTERFERENCE. All what happens close in time in the car interior and ****s on your pre-made passive high dollar unit unless the boston acoustics crossover engineer drives your exact car. Lol at some hit each other and slow down, dude time alignment is move your tweeter back two inches in the flat midwoofer baffle on your "home audio system" so the mid has time to catch up to the 1" 13,000hz sound wave. I dumbed that down severely so don't use that in a future quote. Are you gonna stand behind that comment for real, you are out of reach in this one here for sure now.


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

lycan said:


> time and phase are *NOT* the same thing.
> 
> time delay and linear phase shift *ARE* the same thing.
> 
> ...


LOL dude.. shut up.. You are stretching things really thin now. A time shift and time delay no mater how you label it are NEVER the same thing. Linear or non linear. a phase shift is a phase shift not a time shift. 
A phase shift is liek a negative of a photo. Where a a time shift is a blur in the photo. Lycan needs to get back to his werewolf school.


----------



## lycan (Dec 20, 2009)

cajunner said:


> Never heard it put like that, and that's not how I'd describe it.
> 
> 
> time alignment is when you delay one signal from another signal, to have them arrive at the same time.
> ...


wow ... just wow.

Does anyone even care about facts in this thread? Or is it all about hocus pocus & magic?

The phase of a low-pass crossover behaves like this :

*First order*:

0 degrees at DC
45 degrees at the crossover frequency
90 degrees at very high frequency

*Second order*:

0 degrees at DC
90 degrees at the crossover frequency
180 degrees at very high frequency

The interested readers can extrapolate to higher order filters 

*Note that the phase is not "fixed" ... it VARIES with FREQUENCY.*

And : actives & passives behave the SAME way ... except, of course, the "magic" passives in someone's imagination 

Oh ... time DELAY, or time "alignment" ... is exactly the same as a LINEAR phase shift. Please don't quote, or debate, until you understand the term "linear phase shift".


----------



## lycan (Dec 20, 2009)

ncv6coupe said:


> Your water is tainted dude! That's called wave propagation and if you want to get scientific, its really constructive and destructive INTERFERENCE. All what happens close in time in the car interior and ****s on your pre-made passive high dollar unit unless the boston acoustics crossover engineer drives your exact car. Lol at some hit each other and slow down, dude time alignment is move your tweeter back two inches in the flat midwoofer baffle on your "home audio system" so the mid has time to catch up to the 1" 13,000hz sound wave. I dumbed that down severely so don't use that in a future quote. Are you gonna stand behind that comment for real, you are out of reach in this one here for sure now.


ignore list, dude ... i'm telln' ya 

The ignorance in this thread is STUNNING.


----------



## d5sc (Aug 14, 2007)

A diiiiiveeeersion...


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

ncv6coupe said:


> Your water is tainted dude! That's called wave propagation and if you want to get scientific, its really constructive and destructive INTERFERENCE. All what happens close in time in the car interior and ****s on your pre-made passive high dollar unit unless the boston acoustics crossover engineer drives your exact car. Lol at some hit each other and slow down, dude time alignment is move your tweeter back two inches in the flat midwoofer baffle on your "home audio system" so the mid has time to catch up to the 1" 13,000hz sound wave. I dumbed that down severely so don't use that in a future quote. Are you gonna stand behind that comment for real, you are out of reach in this one here for sure now.


 What the hell did you just say? reread and try fixing sentences before you post please. I can understand somethings cause I misspell sometimes but that was just not understandable. To make things even more clear, A phase shift is taking a spekler and facing it up or down or away from a person. A Time alignment is taking a speaker and placing it closer or farther from the person. if you cant get that then you need medication. A passive x-over can fix a bit of phase shift NOT time alignment. This is why you hear about on and off axis response in speakers. car audio has bad off axis response due. In other words. it has poor phase problems. using a good passive x-over can fix that. But it still isnt as good as a speaker pointing dead forward to the listener. Active x-overs dont usually fix neither of these problems. To fix time aligmnet you need a time correction utility. That has nothing to do with x-overs.


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

lycan said:


> wow ... just wow.
> 
> Does anyone even care about facts in this thread? Or is it all about hocus pocus & magic?
> 
> ...


You are a pain in my ass. And you are partially right but are very much portraying it wrong. All frequencies have different time delays and phase shifts naturally. that is how we can tell if a person is 5 ft or 50 ft away. But what is hard to distinguish is a person that is 5ft or 50 ft away facing away from you! And that is what phase is about. Phase is when a sound is NOT facing you directly. Time is when a noise is at a certain distance from you. Again. passive x-overs can somewhat fix phase. Not time. When you have 2 speakers pointing at different spaces in the car that is a phase problems that causes your to hear unevenly. When you have time alignments its due to the speakers being different distances.  You can also have a speaker that has the positive and negative reversed. that is a speaker that is out of phase. When getting higher into x-over slopes the frequencies become out of its natural phase and the speaker cones moves backwards. Its hard to hear in some frequencies but in bass if the phase is off the bass becomes weak. So you sometimes see a 180 degrees phase button on x-overs for bass. I have one on the 9887. because we sometimes face our bass away from us it travels to us in a bad phase and is heard in a not so acceptable fashion.


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

cajunner said:


> I'm quoting!
> :surprised:
> 
> just to say thanks for getting that straight, I don't quite get "linear phase shift" yet but I'm closer now...


You need to stop listening to Lycan, he doesnt have a full grasp of things. 
Linear phase shift means there is a shift in phase for all frequency of the signal .
Nonlinear phase shift means the shift is different in some frequencies of same signal . 
Linear phase shift is actually better than non linear cause non linear will sound distorted and uneven. 
So imagine 2 speakers playing the same song. NonLinear shift is when one speaker is playing the bass or mid range or some other frequencies out of phase from the other speaker.
Linear shift is when both speakers or out of phase but still have the same phase shift. meaning they are both playing the same thing at the same time but the sound is backwards or sounds odd. The cones move oposite of what is intended.. Time shift is very different. Lycan is trying but not there with the knowledge..


----------



## lycan (Dec 20, 2009)

d5sc said:


> A diiiiiveeeersion...


best post in this thread


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

lycan said:


> best post in this thread


If you would stop starring at chiks, fantasizing about them and learn what Im talking about then maybe someday you can be greater than what you are now. Grow up!


----------



## lycan (Dec 20, 2009)

cajunner said:


> I'm quoting!
> :surprised:
> 
> just to say thanks for getting that straight, I don't quite get "linear phase shift" yet but I'm closer now...


linear phase shift means this : plot phase versus frequency. If it's a "linear phase shift", then that plot will be a straight line. A straight line, with some slope. Guess what the slope is? YES ... time delay 

A straight line means that the phase shift of 1200 Hz is exactly twice the phase shift of 600 Hz. This is pure time delay ... if this LINEAR behavior is true for all frequencies of interest.

*TIME DELAY = LINEAR PHASE SHIFT*

leave out any of the words, and it will no longer be correct.

engineering ... and english ... is kinda funny that way 

So ... when you add time delay for "time alignment", are you creating a LINEAR phase shift? YES, you are.

Of course, "magic passive crossovers" behave very differently


----------



## ncv6coupe (Oct 25, 2009)

First let me say that I like this game, only because i work second shift tomorrow so i can stay up late. now listen here big beat, you jack. :laugh:



The-Big-Beat said:


> You need to stop listening to Lycan, he doesnt have a full grasp of things.
> Linear phase shift means there is a shift in phase for all frequency of the signal .
> *THATS THE DAMN POINT OF TIME ALIGNMENT, OR DO YOU WANT ME TO CALL IT TIME DELAY*
> 
> ...


ANY 2 SPEAKERS EXCEPT SUBWOOFERS ARE NEVER GOING TO JUST SIMPLY BE "ON AXIS" IN THE CAR. I WONT EXPLAIN THAT, I'LL LET YOU TRY TO UNDERSTAND THAT AS MY TYPINGS ACCORDING TO YOU ARE UN-UNDERSTANDABLE.


----------



## ncv6coupe (Oct 25, 2009)

snaps, the dude who proves you wrong said it earlier while i was typing, what a waste of my time then


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

lycan said:


> linear phase shift means this : plot phase versus frequency. If it's a "linear phase shift", then that plot will be a straight line. A straight line, with some slope. Guess what the slope is? YES ... time delay
> 
> A straight line means that the phase shift of 1200 Hz is exactly twice the phase shift of 600 Hz. This is pure time delay ... if this LINEAR behavior is true for all frequencies of interest.
> 
> ...


 HA!.. You brain is out of alignment. Look we can watch you play with words to suit your audience. but I am my own person. I dont need slight of hand tricks to graps the attention of people. As I said before When a person screams at you while they face away from you it will take a bit longer to hear the sound cause it has to travel farther but the main attribute of phase shift is NOT time ( wave length). Its the wave form. Not he wave length dummy...... Picture a wave of sound. Its bouncing up down up down. If its out of phase then the sound would then be bouncing down up down up (opposite). Those waves travel. The time it takes the waves to travel, in phase or not, is time alignment . If one wave makes it to your ear faster than the other then its out of time alignment. If you hear a WAh in one ear and Haw in the other its out of phase. If you hear wah in both ears or haw in both ears ( just using that as a sound) its in phase. So... Now, if you still cant understand this and your audience doesnt understand this then I must be far more superior than I thought. Or you are just pretending to be a idiot cause you have to much pride to say Im right.


----------



## lycan (Dec 20, 2009)

lycan said:


> linear phase shift means this : plot phase versus frequency. If it's a "linear phase shift", then that plot will be a straight line. A straight line, with some slope. Guess what the slope is? YES ... time delay
> 
> A straight line means that the phase shift of 1200 Hz is exactly twice the phase shift of 600 Hz. This is pure time delay ... if this LINEAR behavior is true for all frequencies of interest.
> 
> ...


Note also : a standard 1st-order, 2nd-order, 3rd-order, etc. low-pass (or high-pass) crossover *WILL* introduce a phase shift.

They will *NOT* introduce a LINEAR phase shift.

They *WILL* introduce a "group delay" that VARIES with frequency.

They will *NOT* introduce a "group delay" that is CONSTANT with frequency ... because that would indicate a LINEAR phase shift, which would be equivalent to a pure time DELAY.

But i warn you, once again ... change any of the words, and the meaning will be lost !!!

The above statements are true & correct, for both passive crossovers AND active crossovers. Nothing "magic" about those huge, expensive passives!


----------



## lycan (Dec 20, 2009)

cajunner said:


> okay, so tell me if this works, because I get all hung up on the speed of sound conversions and distance related crap to try and understand time delay, versus your 600 hz is half of 1200 hz easy-oven cleaner..
> 
> you have a 12 db/octave crossover occurring at 3000 hz. The use of a coil and a cap create the circuit.
> 
> ...


whoever said that the phase shift was LINEAR in typical crossover filters? It's most definitely NOT.


> And if it's not, why use linear phase shift in describing crossover behavior?


I don't. I'm only pointing out that adding time DELAY (yes, even in the digital domain) is equivalent to adding a LINEAR phase shift to the signal.

It's also worth noting that the concept of "phase compensation" comes up, from time to time, in crossover filter discussions. It's a separate topic from "impedance compensation" (except for those who understand neither impedance, nor phase, in which case they might be the same thing). Phase compensation usually refers to circuitry added ... either passively, or actively ... to "make the phase more linear", or equivalently, "make the group delay flatter".


> Unless you were just trying to differentiate between phase shift and time delay.
> 
> Okay, I'm now going back and re-reading the good parts....
> 
> ...


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

ncv6coupe said:


> First let me say that I like this game, only because i work second shift tomorrow so i can stay up late. now listen here big beat, you jack. :laugh:
> 
> 
> 
> ANY 2 SPEAKERS EXCEPT SUBWOOFERS ARE NEVER GOING TO JUST SIMPLY BE "ON AXIS" IN THE CAR. I WONT EXPLAIN THAT, I'LL LET YOU TRY TO UNDERSTAND THAT AS MY TYPINGS ACCORDING TO YOU ARE UN-UNDERSTANDABLE.



I can see this is not just A Lycan problem. Some of Lycans followers just cant be swayed no matter how I prove my points. 
My response is:
NO **** ! 
WOW 
I just said that like 50 times in 50 different words. Except ALL speakers including subwoofers have off axis responses. 
Speakers have on and off axis points on all differnt frequencies and its even worse in a car cause the speakers point at a right angle from you. This is why I mentioned passive x-over try to fix that. Actives dont fix that at all ..


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

lycan said:


> Note also : a standard 1st-order, 2nd-order, 3rd-order, etc. low-pass (or high-pass) crossover *WILL* introduce a phase shift.
> 
> They will *NOT* introduce a LINEAR phase shift.
> 
> ...


Again. You just said this is the same for passive and active. So why are you bothering with active when passive is the same? Duh! You go out and but more gear when the passive comes with the speakers!
Im not accepting what you just said it true Im just saying you are contradicting your own words.


----------



## lycan (Dec 20, 2009)

guys, i just remembered that there's a good thread in the tutorials section about crossovers:

http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum...dio-articles/7160-basic-guide-crossovers.html

lots of good stuff covered ... but watch out for that werewolf guy, he's mad as a hatter 

i'm out


----------



## ncv6coupe (Oct 25, 2009)

The-Big-Beat said:


> HA!.. You brain is out of alignment.
> *SO IS YOURS BECAUSE YOUR RIGHT EAR IS 7 INCHES FURTHER TO THE RIGHT FROM YOUR LEFT EAR AND THAT MY FRIEND IS WHAT TELLS YOU YOUR WAH HAW*
> When* a person *screams at you while they face away from you it will take a bit longer to hear the sound cause it has to travel farther
> *BULL, IF A SINGLE PERSON IS IN AN OPEN FIELD AND SCREAMS AT YOU FORWARD THEN TURN AROUND THE DIFFERENCE WILL BE THE FREQUENCIES OF THEIR VOICE THAT WRAP AROUND THEIR HEAD FIRST(BASS AND MIDBASS) AND GET TO YOUR EARS/BRAIN*
> ...


you just hit home runs everytime ehh


----------



## d5sc (Aug 14, 2007)

The-Big-Beat said:


> HA!.. You brain is out of alignment. Look we can watch you play with words to suit your audience. but I am my own person. I dont need slight of hand tricks to graps the attention of people. As I said before When a person screams at you while they face away from you it will take a bit longer to hear the sound cause it has to travel farther but the main attribute of phase shift is NOT time ( wave length). Its the wave form. Not he wave length dummy...... Picture a wave of sound. Its bouncing up down up down. If its out of phase then the sound would then be bouncing down up down up (opposite). Those waves travel. The time it takes the waves to travel, in phase or not, is time alignment . If one wave makes it to your ear faster than the other then its out of time alignment. If you hear a WAh in one ear and Haw in the other its out of phase. If you hear wah in both ears or haw in both ears ( just using that as a sound) its in phase. So... Now, if you still cant understand this and your audience doesnt understand this then I must be far more superior than I thought. Or you are just pretending to be a idiot cause you have to much pride to say Im right.


Are you an electrical engineer or audio-electrical engineer by trade? 

I believe that someone who previously worked for Crystal Semiconductor and also co-founded a company that specializes in mixed-signal integrated circuits, might possibly know a thing or two about what he or "his furriness" is talking about.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

Not just worked for, but was Senior VP of Research and Design at Crystal. Also lets not forget about that MSEE from MIT.


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

ncv6coupe said:


> you just hit home runs everytime ehh


I didnt even bother reading your entire response cause its juvenile. You respond with a silly attitude and approach it as if it is a game and you have no logic.


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

d5sc said:


> Are you an electrical engineer or audio-electrical engineer by trade?
> 
> I believe that someone who previously worked for Crystal Semiconductor and also co-founded a company that specializes in mixed-signal integrated circuits, might possibly know a thing or two about what he or "his furriness" is talking about.




Who cares.....


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

thehatedguy said:


> Not just worked for, but was Senior VP of Research and Design at Crystal. Also lets not forget about that MSEE from MIT.



Look. Do the research yourself. Type in Zobel. Type in Notch filer. Type in benefits of a passive vs an active x-over. 
Who cares if some dude is the VP of a company. I work for a company that has an electrical engineer. I have to fix that dudes screw ups weekly! Look at Enron. there VP was a thief! You gonna back up him when he starts tellin you how to invest?
I also asked a question? Did any of you build passives? I do..... But whateber. Just like a church, people need to follow someone. It doesnt matter what they follow as long as it sounds decent...


----------



## ncv6coupe (Oct 25, 2009)

Go back under the bridge guy, halloween was YESTERDAY! Your wrong and your elephant brain just can't own up to it and your EE coworker needs to go back to school if YOU have to fix anything for him.


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

Your user name (The-Big-Beat) describes what happened to you and your logic in this thread!


----------



## Kramer (Mar 7, 2008)

Can we just delete all of the-big-beat's misinformation?
I thought I had a solid grasp of crossovers, but after reading all the crap he posted, i'm having a hard time thinking straight.

- I read this board. A lot. lycan (werewolf) has been one of the best (and most credible and legible) sources of information here for a very long time. His long history working with electronics in the audio field has given him a ton of knowledge that he shares with us time, and time again.

Looking over the-big-beat's posts, I still can only find a few nuggets of information, that I cannot tell is from personal experience or retranslated from a wiki or another post. Can we either clean these posts up? Or have one large <i>factual</i> post, recapping claims you've made? not hearsay or rebuttals? This way we can all look objectively and set out what is correct.


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

The-Big-Beat said:


> Look. Do the research yourself. Type in Zobel. Type in Notch filer. Type in benefits of a passive vs an active x-over.
> Who cares if some dude is the VP of a company. *I work for a company that has an electrical engineer.* I have to fix that dudes screw ups weekly! Look at Enron. *there VP was a thief!* You gonna back up him when he starts tellin you how to invest?
> I also asked a question? Did any of you build passives? I do..... But whateber. Just like a church, people need to follow someone. It doesnt matter what they follow as long as it sounds decent...


That electrical engineer would not have risen up the company ladder to lead others in a design branch of a company. He would not have been admitted to or graduated from MIT. He would not have established a _successful_ company. How would not have helped design the DAC chips that help you enjoy the music you listen to today. 

An EE can get in the company door with a smile and some BS, but that's as far as he will go.

See the difference.

Also, the Enron VP didn't BS his way up the ladder either, he was placed there because he was a BRILLIANT executive that just happened to be a thief!


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

ncv6coupe said:


> Go back under the bridge guy, halloween was YESTERDAY! Your wrong and your elephant brain just can't own up to it and your EE coworker needs to go back to school if YOU have to fix anything for him.


Youre telling me Im wrong when you cant even keep up with the conversation! Ive given links, quotes and even asked a simple question which none of you can answer. Typical... Bunch of assholes...


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

So, if I don't build passives, you must be right? Interesting logic. Obviously most of us don't know **** about you. How do we even know you build passive crossovers? I do know this, I have read everything you posted and referenced, and just from that and what Lycan posted, his point of view holds tons more water than yours. And yours really doesn't make much sense. We are not dumb on this forum. There are a couple we can recommend to you to post in that the members will believe anything you say if that is what you are looking for.


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

cajunner said:


> I get 2 trains of thought when it comes to the Big Beat's style of posting.
> 
> first, is that TSpence is back in slightly vindictive mode.
> 
> ...



Sigh.. whatever... You all see things your way.. I see things the way it is. Ive used quotes from a good website. I tried to make pictures in your mind of how sound works but none of you see it. I used logical examples in at least 3 different ways. All this Lycan keeps saying is that a zobel is for fixing the x-overs resistance and that Phase shifting is time misalignment wich is all total ********. You all follow along with this turd but have no clue if he is even telling you the truth! Yes , a speaker pointed to the dash is going to have phase problems. And a 2 speakers of different distance will have time alignment problems. You can use an active or a passive filter to try fixing these. But dont say passives are useless and dont act like Im a dumb ass cause the truth is your the ones with no clue! You just assume what he sais it true cause he claims to be some engineer. blah blah but never build a passive -over. Maybe this dude has some knowledge of audio but when you say passive x-overs are useless you really make yourself look like a retard. Truth is I do have a odd way of showing my point. BUT the point is im right. Passive x-overs are not useless. We need them. Not just in car and home audio. But also in telecommunications, Power stations and computers just to mention a few. the whole trouble with this entire thread is a few things. One is that none of you have a full grasp of any of this anyway. So youre all just agreeing due to his claim of being some engineer. second is that you cant picture the examples I gave and you cant simply take a few hours and read the numerous websites on passive crossovers that explain there benefits. Third is you all just decided for no reason that I dont use active but I do! Im just trying to prove that using a good passive x-over can be very beneficial. reality is that in every piece of audio technology we use, there is active and passive filters. Cellphones. Laptops. headphones. But this bullshittalker seems to just totally disregard this and say that passives are useless! Ive seen many times people follow the blind as the blind claim to have seen Jesus. LOL You are all stupid if you dont take some time to read and learn for yourself what is true... Who cares if this dude is a engineer. For all you know I can be an engineer. Doesnt matter. Go read and educate yourself and stop being a bunch of pricks ..... Topic should now be closed....


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

The-Big-Beat said:


> Sigh.. whatever... You all see things your way.. I see things the way it is. Ive used quotes from a good website. I tried to make pictures in your mind of how sound works but none of you see it. I used logical examples in at least 3 different ways. All this Lycan keeps saying is that a zobel is for fixing the x-overs resistance and that Phase shifting is time misalignment wich is all total ********. You all follow along with this turd but have no clue if he is even telling you the truth! Yes , a speaker pointed to the dash is going to have phase problems. And a 2 speakers of different distance will have time alignment problems. You can use an active or a passive filter to try fixing these. But dont say passives are useless and dont act like Im a dumb ass cause the truth is your the ones with no clue! You just assume what he sais it true cause he claims to be some engineer. blah blah but never build a passive -over. Maybe this dude has some knowledge of audio but when you say passive x-overs are useless you really make yourself look like a retard. Truth is I do have a odd way of showing my point. BUT the point is im right. Passive x-overs are not useless. We need them. Not just in car and home audio. But also in telecommunications, Power stations and computers just to mention a few. the whole trouble with this entire thread is a few things. One is that none of you have a full grasp of any of this anyway. So youre all just agreeing due to his claim of being some engineer. second is that you cant picture the examples I gave and you cant simply take a few hours and read the numerous websites on passive crossovers that explain there benefits. Third is you all just decided for no reason that I dont use active but I do! Im just trying to prove that using a good passive x-over can be very beneficial. reality is that in every piece of audio technology we use, there is active and passive filters. Cellphones. Laptops. headphones. But this bullshittalker seems to just totally disregard this and say that passives are useless! Ive seen many times people follow the blind as the blind claim to have seen Jesus. LOL You are all stupid if you dont take some time to read and learn for yourself what is true... Who cares if this dude is a engineer. For all you know I can be an engineer. Doesnt matter. Go read and educate yourself and stop being a bunch of pricks ..... Topic should now be closed....


Enter enter enter enter enter.........


----------



## I800C0LLECT (Jan 26, 2009)

The-Big-Beat said:


> ...Topic should now be closed...




score!!


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

Oh.. for all you kids that like to "score" and post chik pics etc etc.... Prove im wrong ........ :surprised:


----------



## AAAAAAA (Oct 5, 2007)

The-Big-Beat said:


> Again. You just said this is the same for passive and active. So why are you bothering with active when passive is the same? Duh! .


I don't get why this isn't going through your head. A stock passive isn't made for the environment it is placed in so it is really a generic solution that is easy to implement but not optimal.

If both passive and active can get the same results why use active? Because it's easier to use and more precise. anything you want to change you can cheange it on the fly with active. So it makes it better for the environment where you are placing said system. While the stock passive is just that, a generic solution that "works".




> You go out and but more gear when the passive comes with the speakers!


If you want generic sound and don't care to optimize your setup, then you stick with the passive that comes with your set. 

Or you make one passive that is tailored specific to your car... but if your original design needs changing its not going to be quick.... while with active you can try any number of combinations within mear moments. THAT's what you can't do with a passive.


----------



## I800C0LLECT (Jan 26, 2009)

The-Big-Beat said:


> Oh.. for all you kids that like to "score" and post chik pics etc etc.... Prove im wrong ........ :surprised:


The burden of proof doesn't lie with me or others. You made subjective comments and have been unable to back them up. Everybody else says the same thing...passive cross overs from a manufacturer are not specific to YOUR vehicle environment.

Because a passive is a bit more intensive when wanting to try something "different" it's not as beneficial as a processor with "active" or on the fly adjustment cross-overs. Again, good luck finding optimal response in your vehicle when starting from scratch with passive eq and passive cross overs.

Just don't call us stupid for wanting to go the easier route with processors. As far as I know Lycan was only telling you that there's nothing sonically beneficial from one to the other; therefore, since a processor is more flexible it's simply the better choice.


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

cajunner said:


> no, for what I can tell, you cannot be an engineer, not even close to one that has passed basic theory. I know, because I took basic electrical engineering in college, and had to drop it because it was so math heavy I needed to approach a different major, because it was grinding my gears....



See this is what Im saying. You didnt even look at the link I gave wich explains what a zobel does. I even quoted the dam website. I dont even bother reading half the dumb **** you people are saying now cause youre all just on a bandwagon to bash. You all dont even have teh education to prove that Lycan is right much less me being wrong!. Yea I do have a odd way of explaining things. Too bad that you cant understand it!


----------



## I800C0LLECT (Jan 26, 2009)

The-Big-Beat said:


> See this is what Im saying. You didnt even look at the link I gave wich explains what a zobel does. I even quoted the dam website. I dont even bother reading half the dumb **** you people are saying now cause youre all just on a bandwagon to bash. *You all dont even have teh education to prove that Lycan is right much less me being wrong!. *Yea I do have a odd way of explaining things. Too bad that you cant understand it!



Again...burden of proof lies with you. We have been through this process ourselves and for whatever reason, whether degree related or not, isn't our problem. Your beef is with him, you prove him wrong.

Maybe you need to realize that we do know what you're saying and it's wrong. Don't assume 'we don't get it' since we don't agree with you. To be respected you must respect those in front of you first. Lycan earned it quite a bit ago.


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

AAAAAAA said:


> I don't get why this isn't going through your head. A stock passive isn't made for the environment it is placed in so it is really a generic solution that is easy to implement but not optimal.
> 
> If both passive and active can get the same results why use active? Because it's easier to use and more precise. anything you want to change you can cheange it on the fly with active. So it makes it better for the environment where you are placing said system. While the stock passive is just that, a generic solution that "works".
> 
> ...


NO YOU NEED TO get it.. A passive CAN BE a general tool. I already said that. reread... An Active can also be a general tool. I said that too. BUT ON HIGH END SPEAKERS THPASSIVE _XOVER IS TAYLOR MADE TO WORK WITH THAT SPECIFIC SPEAKER! ALOS I AGREE THAT A ACTIVE IS EASIER TO USE> I SAID THIS ALREADY> I USED THE WORD FLEXIBILITY REMEMBER! BUT AN ACTIVE X-OVER In AMPS AND STEREOS DONT HAVE ZOBEL NETWORKS OR ATTENTUATION OR NOTCH FILTERS AND DONT HAVE Bessel OR Chebyshev OR Butterworth TYPES WHICH YOU ALL KNOW NOTHING ABOUT. ITS A GENERAL PURPOSE TOOL UNLIKE TEH HIGH END PASSIVE XOVERS. IF you cant get that simple paragraph then you are all [email protected] retarded.....
LOOK HERE AGAIN! Look At a different website to even further educate your dumb ass...ILL EVEN QUOTE A DIYspeaker webpage that very much explains what I been saying about Zobels..ITS HERE "when one mentions a Zobel Network in the context of speaker design, it typically means a circuit to "flatten out" the impedance curve of the driver" Lycan stated the Zobel is to fix the passive x-over. IT ISNT. Its to fix teh Driver like I said many times. You people still wanna follow along on the Lycan bandwagon? Go far it. Just stop calling me a dumb ass. And back to a passive being used for just home use. ********! What kinda retarded statement is that? How are you going to seperate the music in any speaker without a x-over whether it be for home or car use? The object of SQ is to get the speaker to sound as best a s possible in a test room. Not your car. X-overs are not made for specific cars or trucks or houses. They are made for teh flattest possible sound reproduction at usually 1w from 1 meter away using just the driver in a chamber. Dumb ass....All of you! And I say that cause you are all saying thinsg that you know nothing about and then trying to represent like you do!.. LOOK HERE for Phase shift pictures. Its not about Time alignment. Its about the waveform liek I mentioned you dumm asses. Lycan keeps tellin you all lies! NOW After looking at alll these links and reading and learning Im sure that if there one person that still cant agree what I am saying si true there you just acting stupid and have to much pride to say Im right...FOR ONELAST LINK HERES WHERE I put Lycans claim that Passive X-overs are useless.... I quote from WIKI Pedia.. "Zobel networks can be used to make the impedance a loudspeaker presents to its amplifier output appear as a steady resistance. This is beneficial to the amplifier performance."
So if you really wanna hear SQ and make sure your speakers and amplifiers work together and make th e best sound possible USE a Passive in the high end speakers that came with them. The generic passives arent so special and dont have zobels and therefors are not required to get teh best out of yoru speakers. Some high end speaker dont even need a zobel. They use a set of different types of x-overs like Butter worth or Bessel etc. Ribbon speakers dont need zobels cause they are almost purely resistive! . Active x-over in todays Stereos dont have zobels or notch filters or attentuation... Again. If you disagree your just a idiot.


----------



## I800C0LLECT (Jan 26, 2009)

The-Big-Beat said:


> NO YOU NEED TO get it.. A passive CAN BE a general tool. I already said that. reread... An Active can also be a general tool. I said that too. *BUT ON HIGH END SPEAKERS THPASSIVE _XOVER IS TAYLOR MADE TO WORK WITH THAT SPECIFIC SPEAKER!*


Let's presume that speakers are designed for specific response within a given circumstance. If they are designed to maximize potential in that environment...is it the same as our vehicle?! They utilize neat little ideas that help EQ the response.

In a vehicle...my interior looks nothing like the testing environment where the passives are furiously designed. So why bother using their built in EQ when it has nothing to do with the speakers response in MY car? Therefore, manufacturer passives for an automobile don't mean much


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

I800C0LLECT said:


> Let's presume that speakers are designed for specific response within a given circumstance. If they are designed to maximize potential in that environment...is it the same as our vehicle?! They utilize neat little ideas that help EQ the response.
> 
> In a vehicle...my interior looks nothing like the testing environment where the passives are furiously designed. So why bother using their built in EQ when it has nothing to do with the speakers response in MY car? Therefore, manufacturer passives for an automobile don't mean much


DUDE you have no idea what the hell your even saying. ANY SPEAAKER. YOU NAME IT. IT NOT TESTED IN A CAR! ITS TESTED IN A CHAMBER or special room WITH NO OUTSIDE DISTORTION! When its time to tests its frequency range and flateness they are all measured in one universal way. And that way is not in your car dummy. After they measure the speaker then they make a special -passivee xover to worrk with the speaker to make sure that speaker plays in just the range it can handle. That has nothing to do with it being in a car or home dummy. If you wanna use the speaker in a home car or where ever that is your decision. We are talking about raw drivers. Now, Some companies DO make speakers systems in a certain fashion that will be used specifically for home or car. BUT the test still isnt geared for YOUR PARTICULAR CAR! They test to make sure it plays the best in a car like environment or a home like environment.. If you cant understand that your a dummy.


----------



## AAAAAAA (Oct 5, 2007)

As mentioned the point being missed is that it's just as important or more so even to tune *FOR THE ENVIRONMENT!*

Seeing as car speakers environment AND enclosure will always be different then the passive is simply a matter of convenience so any end user can get it to work with minimal investment and knowledge.


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

The-Big-Beat said:


> DUDE you have no idea what the hell your even saying. ANY SPEAAKER. YOU NAME IT. IT NOT TESTED IN A CAR! ITS TESTED IN A CHAMBER or special room WITH NO OUTSIDE DISTORTION! When its time to tests its frequency range and flateness they are all measured in one universal way. And that way is not in your car *dummy*. After they measure the speaker then they make a special -passivee xover to worrk with the speaker to make sure that speaker plays in just the range it can handle. That has nothing to do with it being in a car or home *dummy*. If you wanna use the speaker in a home car or where ever that is your decision. We are talking about raw drivers. Now, Some companies DO make speakers systems in a certain fashion that will be used specifically for home or car. BUT the test still isnt geared for YOUR PARTICULAR CAR! They test to make sure it plays the best in a car like environment or a home like environment.. If you cant understand that your a *dummy*.


"dummy"...what, are you 2 years old or something. I know you are but what am I?


----------



## ncv6coupe (Oct 25, 2009)

This guy is awesome, big beat its been fun but now let's really cut the crap, its been 3 days now. 

1. A passive crossover and an active crossover are two of the same. So one is before the amp, the other is after, ps. Ignore every single variable like cap and resistor tolerance, back emf, heat from power blah blah blah. Everyone knows this and will not argue with you there.


The beef is when you start this high end **** about passive crossovers, those crossovers come with built in passive "EQUALIZATION" so how do we level the playing field, well of course we add active equalization to our pre-amp active crossover, still following along? Cool beans. Now take your $1200 speakers that were designed and tested on a 12 foot tall flat baffle in the middle of a BIG room, optimized with (impedance flattening)zobel networks and capacitor/resistor/inductor equalization which according to you you already know everything about then you start cutting and boosting to account for cone breakup and have wonderful flat frequency response in your BIG listening space on and off axis with no reflections within the first 10 ms of. Put your gods grace speakers in the car, 50" roof height, 60inch width, 96" deep cabin, that's huge by the way but whatever I'm playing into your hand here. Let's do some "ACOUSTIC MATH" you got midbass nulls at 135hz, 112hz, and 70hz. That means your store bought high end speakers with pre-made passive crossovers WILL sound like bassless pieces of **** just like any other speaker of your choice you run in the car with no prior knowledge of what car it was going In to begin with and a finalized compensation circuit. There's soo much more to consider but you're "smart" enough to know it already rite????? Now YOU prove me wrong!


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

cajunner said:


> dummy!
> 
> :laugh:


I know you are but what am I? :laugh::laugh:


----------



## ncv6coupe (Oct 25, 2009)

:laugh:no caj, you explain things in a weird way but "you" know what your talking about


----------



## 89grand (Nov 23, 2006)

God damn that dude is dense. I tried to let this one go, but the guy is ****ing clueless. Lycan is of course correct. Not because he has a degree, or where he does, or used to work, or what he's designed. Those are just factors that should make someone take notice of what he's saying. He's correct because he is.

A: There is nothing a passive crossover can do that cannot be duplicated by an active set up. With an active setup, you can change the slope, change the frequency, over lap crossover points, under lap them, change the level of any driver. In addition, because they are separate amps, you never have a case of the midrange amp being over driven and effecting the tweeter as well, unlike passive setups.

The one and only possible benefit is that you can use just one 2 channel amp with a passive setup, and I don't even see that as a plus.

B: A ****ing Zoble is not needed in an active setup, it doesn't do **** to the driver, it's for the amplifiers benefit while driving the whole load, the crossover plus speaker impedance. It doesn't actually make the speakers impedance flat, it just fools the amp into thinking it does. It benefits the system as a whole because the amplifier behaves better when driving the speakers and maintains a more accurate crossover value. An active system has no use for a Zoble because the speaker does not influence the crossover value in an active setup. Using one would make no sense. That why we use eq's.


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

"The-Big-Bea(*e)t"

Coincidence? I think not! :laugh:


----------



## 89grand (Nov 23, 2006)

cajunner said:


> I wonder if this holds true for class D full range amplifiers. I read somewhere that the designs in class D are more specific for a given impedance, and if you try and operate an amplifier outside of that range in the higher frequencies, you could run into trouble, such as when using a full-range driver of the 3" or 4" variety.
> 
> the impedance could be up around 20 ohms at 15Khz, and if class D amplifiers have trouble with that high of an impedance, there could be some issue develop.


The speakers maximum impedance is at Fs, but many full range drivers do also have impedance rise in the upper frequencies, but I can't see it having any effect on the amplifier. If anything, the upper end impedance rise is probably a good thing, at least for the overall sound of the speaker.


----------



## ncv6coupe (Oct 25, 2009)

Less power less airyness, turn them widebanders on axis


----------



## 89grand (Nov 23, 2006)

cajunner said:


> this impedance rise, is what the Zobel is used to correct.
> 
> the Zobel isn't for resonance correction, it's for crossover frequency correction, and if you're using a "home-brew" simple passive to crossover your Hybrids and your "upstage" tweeters at 10khz crossover, you could run into impedance rise that puts the amplifier into a high ohms operating condition, but that is probably not a problem, just seems like I remember reading how class D was finicky with high impedances.



I know what the Zobel does for a passive crossover design, by countering the speakers inductance rise, it flattens out the impedance to basically the speakers Re which in turn creates a more predictable crossover point. 

But it wouldn't serve any purpose for an active system, which is the only thing I'm maintaining. You always have overall impedance rise, even with passive crossovers, in fact, especially with them. I don't see the impedance rise as a problem for any modern amp, Class D or otherwise. 

It does however create numerous problems for passive crossover designs, hence the sole purpose of a Zobel network.


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

cajunner said:


> and you still don't get that the car environment is a bigger influence on the sound at the listening position than what the car speaker manufacturers use to get good sound from that "anechoic chamber" you talk about.
> 
> the point, which is still going past you, is that whatever adjustments are built into the passive crossover the manufacturer provides, they are still crude adjustments compared to what active can do, especially when in the digital domain.
> 
> ...


Oh I do get the idea. YOu still dont. I totally understand that Active X-overs can do sooo much and they are sooo easy to use. What YOU dont understand is that the Active x-overs in your stereos and surroun dsystems DONT HAVE zobels and DONT use special x-over types. They use one type and that its is. Its hard for you to see what Im saying cause you have no idea what types there are and what they can do. I posted different links did you read? It doesn matter if a speaker is in a car a boat or a house. The zobel network in a crossover is made for the speaker . And the actuall passive crossover can shape the sound so teh phase is more appealing in a car or a house depending on what type of xover you use whether it be 18db butter worth or 24db Bessel. You cannot get that in any active setup even in stand alones. You name ONE brand that gives all those 3 types of x-overs. Im not just talking slopes and cut offs. Im talking types as in the name. And show me one active x-over that incorporates a zobel , a notch filter? Ive looked. There is non for consumers. I have one o the best head units to date. It has all kinds of x-over pints and slopes. It doesnt have the types of x-overs or the zobel. Those 2 can change and shape the sound in any speaker. Regardless of a car or a boat. Or if its in a room. These companies spend millions on equipment to measure in car response with and without these taylor made passives. Then dont waste money cause Lycan says its useless. Actives CAN do all this but you cant find it anywhere in the consumer market... Show me ! You cant. It doesnt exist. I dont even see it in any market cause a zobel is specific and built for a certain driver. Not a general use network. I do recognize that digital xovers can do many many things but they do have there limits. And passives have there limits. Why cant you people understand the things Im saying? I guess cause its like an astronymer telling you to look at orion belt when u have no clue what it even looks like. So you just make up and line in the sky and point saying.. I see it.. And no its not it..


----------



## 89grand (Nov 23, 2006)

The-Big-Beat said:


> Zobel network....blah blah blah...Actives don't have them so they suck...blah blah blah...


Goddammit, for the last time. A ****ing Zobel network is only of benefit to a passive design. Active crossovers *don't need them*, so THAT is why they don't have them. It's like trying to say electric cars suck only because they don't have a gas tank. They don't one for obvious reasons, and having one would be completely unnecessary.

Get off the Zobel ****, it has it's purpose, no one ever said it didn't, but you seem to think they are useful beyond their one and only purpose, and for that, if nothing else, you are flat out wrong.


----------



## 89grand (Nov 23, 2006)

cajunner said:


> that's my point! you have the issue of using a 6.8uf cap on a circuit that is up around 18-22 ohms, the passive crossover won't work properly unless you include a Zobel. It seems to me that everybody that recommends a 12db/oct network with a cap and coil, is doing a disservice to the community by not including impedance compensation.
> 
> Or, how is a simple crossover supposed to work right if you have impedance rise at the crossover frequency that totally throws off the corner?
> 
> I wouldn't want to use passives based on this, just from the simple fact that you would have to measure your speaker's impedance at the crossing frequency and I don't have that equipment (that I am aware of) so designing a passive crossover is not really wise if you can go active with it's inherently easier and more correct function.


Yeah, passives are a lot of work to get right, and then when you finally get it right, it offers nothing over an active setup, so I won't use them either.

Oh wait, I forgot, they are totally worth it because you can use a Zobel, even though it's not needed in an active setup anyway.


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

I800C0LLECT said:


> Let's presume that speakers are designed for specific response within a given circumstance. If they are designed to maximize potential in that environment...is it the same as our vehicle?! They utilize neat little ideas that help EQ the response.
> 
> In a vehicle...my interior looks nothing like the testing environment where the passives are furiously designed. So why bother using their built in EQ when it has nothing to do with the speakers response in MY car? Therefore, manufacturer passives for an automobile don't mean much



What you just said is lame but lets take that same approach and use an active x-obver. All your doing is dialing in on a set up slopes and frequencies till teh speakers sounds good. But you really dont have a RTA to measure the sound. The point Im gettin at is that the Active is fine. But how you gonna take out the bumps an ddips that the speaker snatural has that you cant fix with an eq or your active x-over? Ill tell you how smart ass.. By using special taylor made passives with a network in it to asset the speakers resistive and inductive characteristics. That is how you win contests. Or you can just buy a very expensive set of speakers with minimal inductive properties so you dont need a zobel. Like a ribbon speaker...My point taht you let pass over your head is that they try to get the flattest measurements they can in a chamber. Then work from there. Its UP TO YOU to buy eq's and time correction to fix the problems you have in YOUR CAR or house. Its impossible to get speakers to sound exactly the same in every car smart ass. Geez.. You all must be looking for things to come at me with.. Making things up... And you all do it thinking you know what your talking about. You dont. The worst part is you got a bad attitude that says... na na knee booo I got one over on you. But you dont! your just kids with mental blocks cause Lycan filled you up with ********!


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

cajunner said:


> let's go bolded ideas first:
> what do you mean, we know nothing about crossover names? WE do. You don't.
> 
> lycan stated the zobel is to present the passive components with a resistive load, so that the values aren't changed by the driver's impedance. You need to understand what he said first, before you can lay claim to him being wrong.
> ...


Just AFTER Lycan stated the correct words of what a zobel does he then said the contradicting statement of "We don't use Zobels in active crossovers (typically) because we don't need the compensation that they provide." That statement is false. A driver usually does need a zobel for compensation. Actives cann not provide such compensation. Show me a active x-over that has a zobel in it for all Drivers. Lycan also stated this true statement "Also ... a passive crossover and an active crossover will provide the EXACT same phase shift, per order of filtering. You don't gain any "phase benefit" by going passive" But what he did not mention is that active crossovers come in one style. Usually Linkwitz Riley. That doesnt do what A bessel or Other type of x-over can do for the driver. And passive can be built with that type and many others to taylor the sound. Lycan also said "This allows the passive crossover to behave as if its driving a resistive load" and that suggests that the crossover is driving the speaker? WTH IDK what the hell that meant but the amp drives the speaker and the zobel makes sure the amp drives it with ease. Lycan also said this dumb ass remark "The Zobel is NOT needed with an active crossover, because the driver is driven with a low-imepdance source (the amplifier) and therefore the crossover characteristic will NOT be influenced by the driver's impedance" THE Zobel is for the driver not the crossover not the amps impedence. look at my dam links on that!. The output impedance of an amp has nothing to do with a zobel. Finally Lycan states "Therefore, the need & use of a Zobel in a passive is NOT any kind of "advantage" compared to an active crossover." which is VERY unrue. Lok at teh link I provided and see that Wikipedia has teh whole definition of the zobel and actually stated it is a benefit. get your **** right dude. READ. Ive proven over and over and over im right. I havent seen one shred of evidence that Im wrong. Ive poste dlinks an dquotes and even used Lycans own dumb ass remarks that go against professional websites. This is getting really boring and a waste of time now cause you all show no end to your stupidity.


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

cajunner said:


> Channel Layout
> 2 inputs 4 outputs 1 subwoofer output
> Input section for each channel:
> EQ Filters:
> ...


Very good. I see that all the time. But can that active too all the x-over types? not just Butterworth. And does it have a zobel for your speakers? NO! Butterworth x-overs may not have the approriate rolloff for your speakers or may not presnet it with the proper phasing for in car response. Depends on allot. You cant just use this on ALL speakers and get a flat response on ever speaker. Yea you can do allot but it wont do everything. I think now maybe you can see that a passive is a taylor made tool. Much like a mans mans high end tuxedo. Yea you can wear whatever brand and it may look nice. But will it fill in the gaps and feel like a glove? No. not like a taylor made Tux.


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

cajunner said:


> I wonder if this holds true for class D full range amplifiers. I read somewhere that the designs in class D are more specific for a given impedance, and if you try and operate an amplifier outside of that range in the higher frequencies, you could run into trouble, such as when using a full-range driver of the 3" or 4" variety.
> 
> the impedance could be up around 20 ohms at 15Khz, and if class D amplifiers have trouble with that high of an impedance, there could be some issue develop.


Very good ********.. You are the only one here that actually tries to understand. So from your common sense Im sure your are thinking that in amps they have some kinda circuit that maybe similar to a zobel so you can run amps without blowing them due to odd resistive loads..... Wait.. Oh Those networks are useless as for as Lycan is concerned.. I guess these idiots totally didnt read the link that stated zobels are a benefit. No not just to the amp. But to the sound! But Im guessing that website was ******** too right? psssht whatever...


----------



## AAAAAAA (Oct 5, 2007)

Quit it guys, the zobel rules, lets all hail the mighty zobel!

HAIL ZOBEL


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

cajunner said:


> that's my point! you have the issue of using a 6.8uf cap on a circuit that is up around 18-22 ohms, the passive crossover won't work properly unless you include a Zobel. It seems to me that everybody that recommends a 12db/oct network with a cap and coil, is doing a disservice to the community by not including impedance compensation.
> 
> Or, how is a simple crossover supposed to work right if you have impedance rise at the crossover frequency that totally throws off the corner?
> 
> I wouldn't want to use passives based on this, just from the simple fact that you would have to measure your speaker's impedance at the crossing frequency and I don't have that equipment (that I am aware of) so designing a passive crossover is not really wise if you can go active with it's inherently easier and more correct function.


You got it almost 100% correct. the truth is the Zobel is for the DRIVERS characteristics not the crossovers. Read the link I provided a while back..


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

lycan said:


> This post is so full of bullshyt it's hardly worth a response.
> 
> No, using a Zobel is not retarded ... providing that you UNDERSTAND ITS FUNCTION. All it does is flatten the impedance curve of a driver. This allows the passive crossover to behave as if its driving a resistive load ... thereby, behaving the way it's intended. That's it. No special "distortion magic". No special "efficiency magic". Just simple impedance compensation.
> 
> ...



HERE YOU GO ******* QUAOTED YET ANOTHER WEBSITE Why Use a Zobel Network and What Does it Do?

A conjugate network, also known as a Zobel network, or an impedance compensation network, is used to flatten out the impedance curve of a driver. All conventional dynamic driver types exhibit rising impedance with increasing frequency. Below are two actual impedance measurements of the Dayton 6.5" woofer, with and without impedance compensation. Note the dramatic difference in the impedance profiles.The operation of the crossover network is completely dependent on the impedance of the drivers. Having a flat impedance curve is very helpful in crossover design because it enables the filters to act in a more predictable manner. A conjugate network is highly recommended when implementing a crossover from textbook calculations." FROM HERE  After reading this you can hopefully see that the zobel is beneficial.


----------



## AAAAAAA (Oct 5, 2007)

So what you highlighted in red PROVES the reason why a zobel is required for passive but NOT for active

*it enables the filters(passive) to act in a more predictable manner.*

Active = more predictable = zobel not required to add predictability to an already predictable filter type (IE active).


----------



## 89grand (Nov 23, 2006)

This is unbelievable. How hard is it to understand that a Zobel network simply flattens the impedance of a speaker so that the crossover values can be chosen based off of that "corrected" impedance for a more accurate crossover value. The Zobel benefits the crossover design and the amp, and then because of that, by default, the speaker within that system, but nothing to the speaker by it self. Since an active system is filtered before the amplifier, the speakers impedance, no matter how wild, has ZERO effect on the crossover value. In an active system, if you choose 3khz, it's 3khz, no matter if it's a 2 ohm or 16 ohm speaker.

What on earth could a Zobel do for an active system since it doesn't even rely on the speakers impedance? All a Zobel can really do, from an audible standpoint is extend the frequency response of a midrange since frequency response is related to inductance. They aren't used anywhere else, but if you pick the appropriate driver in an active system it's a mute point, plus you could always eq the driver.


----------



## ncv6coupe (Oct 25, 2009)

89Grand, Don't forget he uses "high end" speakers, why should they NEED zobels. Smdh


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

I think it's that time again.......


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

AAAAAAA said:


> So what you highlighted in red PROVES the reason why a zobel is required for passive but NOT for active
> 
> *it enables the filters(passive) to act in a more predictable manner.*
> 
> Active = more predictable = zobel not required to add predictability to an already predictable filter type (IE active).


Jesus Christ!.. If you ever built a crossover you will undersatnd .. Look. To build a passive -over with a zobel you need to know what slope and freqncy you will be cutting off at plust the speakers info. You dont just make a passive then add a zobel. They all are calculated at once. You can actually make a zobel with no passive just to make the driver play flatter and the amp see an almost even resistance load. If you build a zobel an djust add it to ANY passive then what happens is you get odd crossover cutoffs. That is what that statement means....


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

Ok. Ill do this yet again.. Its like kindergarden. You ALMOST understand just not fully.
You can totally do without a zobel. BUT if you want to fully appreciate the sQ of the driver you must use a Zobel. Why? The driver has a voice coil that when moves creates resistance and inductance of varying degress at different frequencies. This variation in resistance can put a damper on SQ by creating dips and humps in the frequency range due to the way the amp deals with the humps and dips. To fix the humps and dips in resistance and create a flatter frequency range you apply a simple zobel network. You can add this circuit with our without any type of passive or active crossover. If you add an active crossover there is no need to calculate the x-over design cause the x-over is before the amp and there are no extra components in the circuitry connected to the speaker that would cause the zobel to malfunction. When using a passive -xover you have to calculate for the new components added because they can have an effect on the end result of cut off and frequency. When calculating for the zobel along with a passive you can then also make the crrossover section do things like correct phase problems in your car. If you have a 3way crossover and using an 18db per octave slope it is suggested to reverse the polarity of the mids. If building a 12db slope you would usually reverse the tweeters polarity. But it all depends on the type of x-over and the slope. When using an active x-over depending on the type such as bessel etc etc the x-over has already been made to give the flattest possible signal to the amp. That doesnt mean the speaker will play flat. That is where the passive networks come into play. There is always some phase problems when applying any type of active or passive filters. Usually a high end speaker will incorporate a zobel and a special type of x-over to fix the frequency dips and humps that would normally be apparent even when using just the amp or even when using an active x-over. Its the nature of a speaker to have dips and peaks at certain frequencies and only a zobel can fix that. The passive that comes with high end speakers is usually taylored to that speaker so it will play at its optimum capabilities. When using just an active x-over all you get is a slope and cutoff. It doesnt fix phase or have a zobel to fix the impedance problems the driver has. Most mid and low end speakers come with normal, general use passive x-overs with nothing special about them. And that is one reason why they are low to mid fi speaker packages.


----------



## mokedaddy (Feb 26, 2007)

The-Big-Beat said:


> Jesus Christ!.. If you ever built a crossover you will undersatnd .. Look. To build a passive -over with a zobel you need to know what slope and freqncy you will be cutting off at plust the speakers info. You dont just make a passive then add a zobel. They all are calculated at once. You can actually make a zobel with no passive just to make the driver play flatter and the amp see an almost even resistance load. If you build a zobel an djust add it to ANY passive then what happens is you get odd crossover cutoffs. That is what that statement means....


So what advantage does a flatter resistance load on an amplifier really provide that cant be done with an active system?


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

mokedaddy said:


> So what advantage does a flatter resistance load on an amplifier really provide that cant be done with an active system?


The Active x-over may be providing a good flat signal to the amp. But when the amp powers the speakers, the amp has to deal with the cones moving up an ddown and that up and down movement of the cone and voicecoil create odd resistive and inductive loads the active x-over dont even see and cant even fix. its the drivers natural movement. TO FIX THAT resistive bouncing teh amp has to deal with and make it a flat or almost flat load you have to put in a zobel!


----------



## mokedaddy (Feb 26, 2007)

The-Big-Beat said:


> The Active x-over may be providing a good flat signal to the amp. But when the amp powers the speakers, the amp has to deal with the cones moving up an ddown and that up and down movement of the cone and voicecoil create odd resistive and inductive loads the active x-over dont even see and cant even fix. its the drivers natural movement. TO FIX THAT resistive bouncing teh amp has to deal with and make it a flat or almost flat load you have to put in a zobel!


Isnt that what an eq is for? So what happens when the drivers resistance and inductives loads change due to outside factors such as heat? Does the zobel read this and change its parameters?


----------



## I800C0LLECT (Jan 26, 2009)

mokedaddy said:


> Isnt that what an eq is for? So what happens when the drivers resistance and inductives loads change due to outside factors such as heat? Does the zobel read this and change its parameters?



Can I add to this? What if the speakers sound is totally effed up with some nearfield obstacles?...windshields...leather...legs...etc?

That zobel doesn't help anything at that point. Because you still need an EQ to help flatten or curve the response as desired.


----------



## ncv6coupe (Oct 25, 2009)

^^lol, big beat definately energized the forum, members I've never seen posted are alive and well, howdy all!


----------



## 89grand (Nov 23, 2006)

The-Big-Beat said:


> The Active x-over may be providing a good flat signal to the amp. But when the amp powers the speakers, the amp has to deal with the cones moving up an ddown and that up and down movement of the cone and voicecoil create odd resistive and inductive loads the active x-over dont even see and cant even fix. its the drivers natural movement. TO FIX THAT resistive bouncing teh amp has to deal with and make it a flat or almost flat load you have to put in a zobel!


That is utterly ridiculous!

The speakers movement does NOT create "odd resistive and inductive loads". Every speaker needs to move, Zobel or not and the impedance and inductance is related to frequency, not the actual amount of movement of the cone, well not directly related. A speakers "unwanted" cone movement is controlled by speakers enclosure and the amps damping factor, and even that is much more stable in an active setup.

Again though, regardless of the speakers impedance or inductance, the crossover in an active setup remains completely stable, and exactly as set by the active crossover. That's the exact opposite of what happens in a passive setup, hence the reason Zobels exist in passive designs.

If a Zobel stopped the speaker from moving, you wouldn't have any sound. Just lay a brick on the cone and save some money if that's your goal.


----------



## 89grand (Nov 23, 2006)

ncv6coupe said:


> ^^lol, big beat definately energized the forum, members I've never seen posted are alive and well, howdy all!


Saying incredibly inaccurate things does have a way of doing that.:laugh:


----------



## mokedaddy (Feb 26, 2007)

I think the qualifier that is being missed is are there frequency plots for these so-called great sounding speakers and if so are they flat? Was the source material pink noise or music? What environment where these measurements taken?


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

here you go......
The website states "In North America, most amplifiers do not come terminated with a Zobel network. It is for that reason that we offer an outboard rc network. The RC will provide an unterminated amp with a 100 ohm load at 100 khz. It also acts as an ultrasonic filter of rfi and emi at 1.6 mhz. If your amp is terminated with a Zobel network and you use our RC also, the sound will suffer because you have created a tank circuit by using 2 filters in the same circuit with inductance between them. You will not hurt the amp by trying this. But if the amp is not terminated you will notice a very large improvement in the sound.
The presentation will become more uniform, clearer, smoother and show more spacial cues. A sense of false brightness will disappear and the sound will be more relaxed and fleshed out."
Basically what it just said is that if you dont have an amp with a zobel then they include one. When you apply the zobel the sound becomes very nice. Much nicer and smoother than without the zobel! if you add there zobel to an amp with a zobel already installed the results will suck! If you want more you should use google...


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

mokedaddy said:


> Isnt that what an eq is for? So what happens when the drivers resistance and inductives loads change due to outside factors such as heat? Does the zobel read this and change its parameters?


OMG your an idiot.. An eq doesnt do that. Only a zobel fixes the resistive load on an amp due to speaker characteristics. An EQ only adds or subtracts gain to certain frequencies..


----------



## mokedaddy (Feb 26, 2007)

The-Big-Beat said:


> here you go......
> The website states "In North America, most amplifiers do not come terminated with a Zobel network. It is for that reason that we offer an outboard rc network. The RC will provide an unterminated amp with a 100 ohm load at 100 khz. It also acts as an ultrasonic filter of rfi and emi at 1.6 mhz. If your amp is terminated with a Zobel network and you use our RC also, the sound will suffer because you have created a tank circuit by using 2 filters in the same circuit with inductance between them. You will not hurt the amp by trying this. But if the amp is not terminated you will notice a very large improvement in the sound.
> The presentation will become more uniform, clearer, smoother and show more spacial cues. A sense of false brightness will disappear and the sound will be more relaxed and fleshed out."
> Basically what it just said is that if you dont have an amp with a zobel then they include one. When you apply the zobel the sound becomes very nice. Much nicer and smoother than without the zobel! if you add there zobel to an amp with a zobel already installed the results will suck! If you want more you should use google...


Do you have any graphs or scientific data to back this up? What exactly does "A sense of false brightness" look like on a frequency response graph? Can anyone really prove "The presentation will become more uniform, clearer, smoother and show more spacial cues."? How does that relate scientifically to sound or is that someone's perception of what they hear??

Smells like ******** to me.


----------



## ncv6coupe (Oct 25, 2009)

^until you have to deal with 100" out of phase reflections off of the passenger side door IN YOUR CAR smarty pants.


----------



## mokedaddy (Feb 26, 2007)

The-Big-Beat said:


> OMG your an idiot.. An eq doesnt do that. Only a zobel fixes the resistive load on an amp due to speaker characteristics. An EQ only adds or subtracts gain to certain frequencies..


I really LOL'd. Why didnt you address the rest of the statement smart guy???? You do realize speaker parameters change dont you??


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

I800C0LLECT said:


> Can I add to this? What if the speakers sound is totally effed up with some nearfield obstacles?...windshields...leather...legs...etc?
> 
> That zobel doesn't help anything at that point. Because you still need an EQ to help flatten or curve the response as desired.


No **** Sherlock! What you fail to see is that the zobel has now given you a level playing field. The speaker has become as flat as possible by itself. Now that you added legs and doors and windshields its upto you to fix it with things like time delay and eq. But if you had not added the zobel it would be very hard to get the speaker sounding as close to optimal as possible. Zobel dont fix legs and windshield. It fixes the driver itself...


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

89grand said:


> That is utterly ridiculous!
> 
> The speakers movement does NOT create "odd resistive and inductive loads". Every speaker needs to move, Zobel or not and the impedance and inductance is related to frequency, not the actual amount of movement of the cone, well not directly related. A speakers "unwanted" cone movement is controlled by speakers enclosure and the amps damping factor, and even that is much more stable in an active setup.
> 
> ...



Again. You are an idiot.. Accept it.. READ here about cone voice coil resistance at movement. quoted "It is important to realize that even though a speaker may have a rating of 8 ohms, the actual value can vary greatly. The impedance of a speaker varies as a function of input signal frequency. As stated above, speaker impedance is in general reactive. This means that the impedance consists of a resistive part and either an inductive or capacitive portion (inductive and capacitive impedances cannot exist at the same time). The actual impedance (for an 8 ohm system) might vary from around 5 or 6 ohms up to as high as 50 or 60 ohms!"
You need to go piss now? Want me to hold your hand? Cant do a simple friggin goodle search? Damm! Speakers move. As they move the voice coil changes resistance. Tweeters can get very high in resistance! A zobel fixes that.


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

cajunner said:


> no active amplification, or active cross over, or DSP.
> 
> this is a simple monitor that has passive components, of course it's got a Zobel....


OMG.. You cant read? You really are making me mad... What does it say? AMPS dont come with zobels.. SO THEY INCLUDE ONE if you wanna add it.. Why would you wanna add it? BETTER SOUND! GEEZZZ


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

cajunner said:


> Fixed.


Um noo *******.. Its so the SPEAKER CAN WORK AS INTENDED> The crossover dont need to be used at all! Really. After like 9 or 10 pages and you people still dont get the dam simplest things....


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

cajunner said:


> just messing with you, this Zobel they are using, is not part of the crossover system.
> 
> it's in a different application, and therefore outside of the thread's points of concern.


Still shows my point.. The zobel does add SQ. Its not useless. What part of Louisiana your from. And sorry Im using bad words. Dont take it personal. Im just pissy. LOL


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

We just need to realize that "The-Big-Beat" is "special" (we can't use the "r" word anymore, it is not politically correct) and therefore we just need to all tell him...."sure, whatever you say", so he will finally stop posting this load of crap!


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

Niebur3 said:


> We just need to realize that "The-Big-Beat" is "special" (we can't use the "r" word anymore, it is not politically correct) and therefore we just need to all tell him...."sure, whatever you say", so he will finally stop posting this load of crap!



yea.. I feel ya. When the great thinkers tried explaining the world was round and we revolved around the sun , they hung them great people and shot um and burned um..... I really have nothing else to post. Ive posted links and quotes that back me up %100 but you all just dont understand it... Maybe one day when you build a x-over you will see what it takes and how they really work... But i doubt that will happen cause you cant even read a dam article on zobel networks...


----------



## 89grand (Nov 23, 2006)

The-Big-Beat said:


> Again. You are an idiot.. Accept it.. READ here about cone voice coil resistance at movement. quoted "It is important to realize that even though a speaker may have a rating of 8 ohms, the actual value can vary greatly. *The impedance of a speaker varies as a function of input signal frequency*. As stated above, speaker impedance is in general reactive. This means that the impedance consists of a resistive part and either an inductive or capacitive portion (inductive and capacitive impedances cannot exist at the same time). The actual impedance (for an 8 ohm system) might vary from around 5 or 6 ohms up to as high as 50 or 60 ohms!"
> You need to go piss now? Want me to hold your hand? Cant do a simple friggin goodle search? Damm! Speakers move. As they move the voice coil changes resistance. Tweeters can get very high in resistance! A zobel fixes that.


Every time I think I've seen the dumbest poster possible on this board, someone comes along and proves me wrong. And now it's you.

I put in bold, and red, so you can easily find it, what I already ****ing said. I said speaker impedance variances are a product of frequency, not simply the movement of the cone as all speakers need to move. You must use a whole bunch of Zobels on your subwoofers since they move so much.:laugh:

In a subwoofer, regardless of how much the cone moves, you have very little impedance change within the subs pass band except at Fs, but all speakers have their highest impedance at Fs. If it were simply a matter of cone movement, the impedance graph of a subwoofer would look like a heart monitor.

Give it up, your ignorance on the subject is mind numbing to everyone but yourself.


----------



## mokedaddy (Feb 26, 2007)

The-Big-Beat said:


> yea.. I feel ya. When the great thinkers tried explaining the world was round and we revolved around the sun , they hung them great people and shot um and burned um..... I really have nothing else to post. Ive posted links and quotes that back me up %100 but you all just dont understand it... Maybe one day when you build a x-over you will see what it takes and how they really work... But i doubt that will happen cause you cant even read a dam article on zobel networks...


Yet you havent answered a single one of my questions... Why is that? 

Anyways I am out because I have to get my scrill up tomorrow but that gives you a whole night to get your google on playa. Peace.


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

89grand said:


> Every time I think I've seen the dumbest poster possible on this board, someone comes along and proves me wrong. And now it's you.
> 
> I put in bold, and red, so you can easily find it, what I already ****ing said. I said speaker impedance variances are a product of frequency, not simply the movement of the cone as all speakers need to move. You must use a whole bunch of Zobels on your subwoofers since they move so much.:laugh:
> 
> ...


What the [email protected][email protected] you think a frequency does to a speaker cone you *******? It MOVES THE CONE to give sound! When it moves the cone the coil changes resistance.. Butt plug! Example.. Deep bass moves a cone out really far and much slower than a tweeter. A bass frequency moves a cone anywhere from 1 to 100hz in and outward per second! For every change in frequency , the voice coil changes its resistance just a little. It gets really high in resistance on tweeters. A zobel is used mostly on tweeters but also can be used on mids. usualy not on subs...EVEN if you took a very accurate volt meter and pushe don the cone and measured the speaker terminals it would give a small reading that would change on the meter! Its the natural of the magnet and coil workin together. How the hell you think generators make electricity! Movement of a coil!


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

mokedaddy said:


> Yet you havent answered a single one of my questions... Why is that?
> 
> Anyways I am out because I have to get my scrill up tomorrow but that gives you a whole night to get your google on playa. Peace.


Sorry but your questions are irrelevant....


----------



## 89grand (Nov 23, 2006)

The-Big-Beat said:


> What the [email protected][email protected] you think a frequency does to a speaker cone you *******? It MOVES THE CONE to give sound! When it moves the cone the coil changes resistance.. Butt plug! Example.. Deep bass moves a cone out really far and much slower than a tweeter. A bass frequency moves a cone anywhere from 1 to 100hz in and outward per second! For every change in frequency , the voice coil changes its resistance just a little. And sometimes allot depending on frequency it gets really high in resistance...EVEN if you took a very accurate volt meter and pushe don the cone and measured the speaker terminals it would give a small reading that would change on the meter! Its the natural of the magnet and coil workin together. How the hell you think generators make electricity! Movement of a coil!


The point is, you claimed speakers moving back and forth created "weird resistance and inductance" as if the further it moved, the worse this "problem" gets. When in reality it's simply a matter of frequency, and not the actual amount of cone movement.

Look at the impedance graph of say a Tang Band 2" full range. The impedance starts to rise in upper frequencies and continues to rise, even though as frequency rises, excursion is reduced. It rises because of inductance. And that's precisely what a Zobel does, it counters the inductance, but it doesn't do **** for the cones movement.


----------



## 89grand (Nov 23, 2006)

The-Big-Beat said:


> Sorry but your questions are irrelevant....


You are irrelevant. It's just as well you don't attempt to answer his question with some voodoo nonsense like you've done nothing but spew.


----------



## mokedaddy (Feb 26, 2007)

The-Big-Beat said:


> Sorry but your questions are irrelevant....


You claim more sq out of a zobel network and my asking for real proof to back up your claims is irrelevent? . You really must be an ignorant piece of work bro. :laugh:

You seem awfully bitter as well. What is up with all the name calling? Where you not loved as a boy? Are you sexually frustrated? Is there a void in your life that arguing on the internet is going to fill?


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

89grand said:


> The point is, you claimed speakers moving back and forth created "weird resistance and inductance" as if the further it moved, the worse this "problem" gets. When in reality it's simply a matter of frequency, and not the actual amount of cone movement.
> 
> Look at the impedance graph of say a Tang Band 2" full range. The impedance starts to rise in upper frequencies and continues to rise, even though as frequency rises, excursion is reduced. It rises because of inductance. And that's precisely what a Zobel does, it counters the inductance, but it doesn't do **** for the cones movement.


 Your interpretation of my words lacks logic..
So if it doesnt do anything for cone movement then tell me why so many say that when addding a zobel, you recognize better SQ? Not just me. We are talking about professional speaker builders. Look at my links! Yet another that dont read ****!...


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

mokedaddy said:


> You claim more sq out of a zobel network and my asking for real proof to back up your claims is irrelevent? . You really must be an ignorant piece of work bro. :laugh:
> 
> You seem awfully bitter as well. What is up with all the name calling? Where you not loved as a boy? Are you sexually frustrated? Is there a void in your life that arguing on the internet is going to fill?


Go back and look at alll these pages of responses I been making .. BRO.... And then you can see why Im name calling. I been called names and on top of that people just dont get the point. Even after I post websites and quote from professional companies they still dont get it. Im tired of responding.. You cant use google? Dam shame I gotta do all the research then after I post the stuff you people request I still get slammed! So YOu go find your own answer like I did many years ago.. But i did it without google... Bro!


----------



## 89grand (Nov 23, 2006)

The-Big-Beat said:


> Your interpretation of my words lacks logic..
> So if it doesnt do anything for cone movement then tell me why so many say that when addding a zobel, you recognize better SQ? Not just me. We are talking about professional speaker builders. Look at my links! Yet another that dont read ****!...



I don't need to read those links. I don't read articles about how speaker wire makes a system more "airy", or how using cable elevators improves stereo separation. **** that nonsense. Some of us here still like to deal in facts, and you've presented none, just links to what other people claim.

A Zobel DOES NOT reduce cone movement, it counters rising inductance. That's it.

I never said it was impossible to sound better with a Zobel network, within a passive design that needs one. But it's how it's improving things that you seem to be failing to understand, and in addition, just exactly what purpose a Zoele has, and where it does not have a purpose.


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

89grand said:


> I don't need to read those links. I don't read articles about how speaker wire makes a system more "airy", or how using cable elevators improves stereo separation. **** that nonsense. Some of us here still like to deal in facts, and you've presented none, just links to what other people claim.
> 
> A Zobel DOES NOT reduce cone movement, it counters rising inductance. That's it.
> 
> I never said it was impossible to sound better with a Zobel network, within a passive design that needs one. But it's how it's improving things that you seem to be failing to understand, and in addition, just exactly what purpose a Zoele has, and where it does not have a purpose.


Again. you use my own wrongs WRONG.. I never sai dany of that **** about a zobel reducing cone movement. I also didnt say anythinng about cables or air. Your a turd. Sorry to say that but you took my words and tried to make me look like something Im not by rearranging them. That is a POS in my opinion. And who cares if you cant read... Go look at more porn... Im sure you got a retiree investment at the vaseline factory... yawwnnnnn


----------



## 89grand (Nov 23, 2006)

The-Big-Beat said:


> Again. you use my own wrongs WRONG..* I never sai dany of that **** about a zobel reducing cone movement*. I also didnt say anythinng about cables or air. Your a turd. Sorry to say that but you took my words and tried to make me look like something Im not by rearranging them. That is a POS in my opinion. And who cares if you cant read... Go look at more porn... Im sure you got a retiree investment at the vaseline factory... yawwnnnnn


Are you seriously going to try and claim you did not say a Zobel reduces cone movement? Seriously, you are? Because you just ****ing said it...and I quote:



The-Big-Beat said:


> *"So if it doesnt do anything for cone movement then tell me why so many say that when addding a zobel, you recognize better SQ?*


You most certainly did just suggest it.

I don't need to play any games with your words, they speak for themselves unedited. Also, your constant childish "cutdowns" even further prove what kind of person you are.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

The-Big-Beat said:


> Again. you use my own wrongs WRONG.. I never sai dany of that **** about a zobel reducing cone movement. I also didnt say anythinng about cables or air. Your a turd. Sorry to say that but you took my words and tried to make me look like something Im not by rearranging them. That is a POS in my opinion. And who cares if you cant read... Go look at more porn... Im sure you got a retiree investment at the vaseline factory... yawwnnnnn


C'mon dude grow up. You're behaving like an immature prick that you probably are.

If the end point of this debate is 'better sound', I would have to say that you are so far removed from the 'sound', that this whole debate is piontless. If you were even vaguely in the ball park of good sound, you'd know that active is better than passive, given a min level of dsp.

Remember you will almost never calculate and measure your way to good sound, neither will you get there by reading junk off the internet. You have to hear and tune your way there. Time alignment / L&R Eq / xover points / slopes / gains / angles on your tweets etc etc are all tuning tools. The more you have the better you will control the sound. Active gives you more tools than passive and thats why its generally better.


----------



## Volenti (Feb 17, 2010)

The-Big-Beat said:


> Your interpretation of my words lacks logic..
> So if it doesnt do anything for cone movement then tell me why so many say that when addding a zobel, you recognize better SQ? Not just me. We are talking about professional speaker builders. Look at my links! Yet another that dont read ****!...


I'll recklessly jump in here to comment on the effect zobels have on a driver.

It's not just external impedance compensation (to facilitate correct passive x-over performance) it also progressively damps the driver electrically by applying a load, the resistor, across the voicecoil as the frequency rises (so in effect, yes it does indeed damp cone movement, at high frequencies). Zobels wern't designed to do that, it's a side effect. This isn't audiofool nonsence, just the application of physics.

Granted, a lot of the time this damping is washed out by the fact that the x-over is rolling off the drivers response by the time or well before the frequency is high enough for the damping to come into practical effect, but in some applications, especially wide band mids, it's noticable.

I'm listening right now to a pair of wide band 5''+ super tweet speakers, and the only passive components effecting the 5'' are baffle step compensation and a zobel, it just rolls off naturally.


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

The-Big-Beat said:


> yea.. I feel ya. When the great thinkers tried explaining the world was round and we revolved around the sun , they hung them great people and shot um and burned um..... I really have nothing else to post. Ive posted links and quotes that back me up %100 but you all just dont understand it... Maybe one day when you build a x-over you will see what it takes and how they really work... But i doubt that will happen cause you cant even read a dam article on zobel networks...


Sure, whatever you say!


----------



## The Baron Groog (Mar 15, 2010)

Tonyguy said:


> I've been through 4 prs of tweetrs when I first switched to an active setup. Lesson learned.


Maybe a little too slowly


----------



## The Baron Groog (Mar 15, 2010)

The-Big-Beat said:


> 1) heres a quote from this website about Zobel networks. "Remember that once a Zobel or notch filter has been determined for a driver, that becomes part of the driver. The network and driver must be treated as one, since the network's purpose is to remove some objectionable characteristic of the attached driver - most commonly unwanted impedance variations." its saying a zobel is for the speakers unwanted characteristics not the xover. wether you use an active or passive -xover the driver has unwanted characteristics the zobel fixes. You are wrong. Zobels do help.


Look, I'm no expert on crossover design and build as you proffess to be, but even I understand that as the speaker nears resonance it's impedence rises. As the impedence rises the cap or coil you selected for crossing over your driver at the desired freq stops working at that freq as the impedence has now changed from 4ohm nonimal to 40ohm, for example, so now the crossover will opperate at a different frequency-hence the need for the Zobel network...It's not the speaker's fault it's impedence rises, but it's the cross-over designer's fault if he doesn't account for it.

Example: 1st order butterworth 4ohm tweeter and 4ohm mid, cross over freq selected 3500hz. Parts needed cap: 11.36uf Coil: 0.18mH

Now, change the impedence of the tweeter to 40ohm as it aproaches resonance and you now need a cap of 1.14uF to get it to cross-over at the desire 3500Hz!

An extreme example, but you can check it yourself:
2-Way Crossover Designer / Calculator

Now if the crossover is active it doesn't matter what impedence the tweeter/woofer is showing the amp as the crossover frequency will be unaffected-does you Alpine know the impedence of the subs it is filtering it's signal to?

Alpine's SPX cross-overs were some of the best I have seen, with dozens of jumpers to account for many different users needs, but more of a PITA to adjust then the most complex active cross-overs-imagine if you'd mounted them in the door and then wanted to adjust a jumper? Royal PITA! Active allows each user to tune for their environment, passive is an "off the shelf" option-would you buy a suit from Walmart, off the shelf, or prefer to have one hand made in Saville Row?

90% of people who buy car audio don't even know what the crossover does, of the remaining 10% only a few % will ever go active


----------



## d5sc (Aug 14, 2007)

From Boston Acoustic's site as to why they recommend their passive crossovers:

Tech Info - Mobile Audio - Boston Acoustics - Speakers, Home Theater, Mobile Audio, Sound Systems and More


Q. Can I use an active crossover instead of the supplied Boston crossovers?

A. Replacing the Boston passive network with an active crossover can be problematic. Each component in the supplied Boston crossover is factored into the total acoustic output of the system. When you remove it from the signal chain and directly couple the woofers and tweeters to an amplifier, you will be unable to exactly replicate the properties of a Boston system specific passive network.

Why?

The first point is that the typical active crossover does not allow nearly the flexibility of a passive design. The second point is that we often stagger or overlap the crossover points to achieve a flat response. The actual electrical crossover points for the woofer and tweeter however are generally asymmetric and different on all of the Boston components. Finding an active crossover that will allow you to adjust each of these points independently and tuning it correctly is going to be difficult but not impossible. Just as a note: designing a passive network takes our team of experienced engineers several months to complete.

You will get better performance from your system by paying more attention to the installation techniques and driver placement rather than pursuing the use of active crossovers. There is no substitute for proper speaker placement and solid installation.


Q. What are the crossover frequency and slope of my Boston car speakers?

A. We do not publish this information, as it doesn't tell you anything useful about the crossover. Even if you know the crossover point and slope, you still do not know the type of network (Butterworth, L&R etc) as there are hundreds of ways to develop a crossover. We could build 10 different networks all with 18dB per octave slopes and each at 3000hz and have each one sound very different. And that's not even taking into account for the fact that often our low pass and high pass sections of the network are at different slopes and don't share the same crossover point.

Someone asking us for a crossover point and slope is like someone asking Honda "How do I build and V-Tech and what is the best color?” It's not that we don't want to answer these questions; it's simply a case of there not being a simple answer. If you using an electronic crossover the passive number will not translate to active values (active crossovers to do not have to account for impedance curves). Experimentation is going to lead you to the proper set up for your system.


Q. When I turn my system up really loud the tweeters sometimes shut off. Why?

A. The Boston crossovers feature a poly switch that will temporally shut the tweeter off if the amplifier is clipping (saving the tweeters from failure). To reduce the possibility of this happening, adjust the amplifiers gains to prevent clipping or upgrade to a larger amplifier. Boosting the treble on the head unit or equalizer can also exasperate this problem. If you are not excited about upgrading the amplifier try moving the tweeters to a more efficient location.


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

cajunner said:


> well, I have to disagree with this spokesperson.
> 
> Boston might spend plenty of time making their speakers sound good with passives, but the reason they tell people to use their passives is because anyone with the knowledge, won't be asking if active is okay, they will already have ditched the passives.
> 
> ...


Totally agree with those two points. I don't see why that is so hard for people to understand.


----------



## The Baron Groog (Mar 15, 2010)

> Having a flat impedance curve is very helpful in crossover design because it enables the filters to act in a more predictable manner


^This is what Lycan has been trying to get into your thick skull-if the impedence isn't flat it affects the crossover slope as the cap/coil value has remained the same!


----------



## ncv6coupe (Oct 25, 2009)

Dammit BA, couldn't your genius passive crossover engineers at least help spell V-TEC right? Smdh


----------



## The Baron Groog (Mar 15, 2010)

The-Big-Beat said:


> yea.. I feel ya. When the great thinkers tried explaining the world was round and we revolved around the sun , they hung them great people and shot um and burned um.....


hahah-you know about as much about history as you do car audio...Last time anyone "believed" the world was flat was long before anyone could shoot them-the ANCIENT GREEKS proved it wasn't and no one educated since believed it was. Anyone after the 5th century who did think it was flat was probably an ancestor of yours...


----------



## d5sc (Aug 14, 2007)

I truly hope this thread is locked eventually. All of these personal attacks and insults are starting to get tiresome, especially when this particular person has shown the same type(s) of bad behavior/manners/responses on other threads:



http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/ebay-auction-links/86690-brand-new-jl-audio-15w6-nib-3.html


The-Big-Beat

DIYMA freshman
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Ask me
Posts: 169

iTrader: (0)

Default Re: BRAND NEW JL AUDIO 15W6 NIB!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasondplacetobe View Post
dead beat dad? child support? dont know who my child is? very articulate. you sound like you know of such things. and what is this " pay a million dollars for a sub" ? the price was $275.00 thats a lot of money to you, huh SON. you sound broke too. i hit the nail when i asked how old you are, huh SON. oh and by the way, iam condescending you, you little cry baby when iam calling you that. you act like a kid. " come correct and represent " did you hear that on yo mtv raps? i aint droping nothing because the more you speak your mind, the more you destroy your credability around here. good REAL people are reading your remarks. you think this is the first 16 year old kid we've seen around. making empty threats and blowing a bunch of know it all hot air. you exposed yourself as a clown SON, and it only took you 60 posts!

LOL.. Seriously.... stop.. You making us laugh and Im trying to keep this on a serious level.

Thanks a$$hole.. butt hole. DYcK face whatever your name is...
All I ever wanted was for me and my home boys to have yall tell us that we get our vocabulary from TV.... Can you be a lil more original? Cause Im pretty sure the music you listen too has much worse vocabulary. And your prolly playin it louder than I am so your trailer park neighbors can hear you while you drink a cold one and talk about the good ole days when you made your teen cousin Jaimie sit on your lap. Also, just rereading the stuff about me being your son.. LOL HAHAHA.. WOW. You found your long lost son on a stereo forum. Hows my mom doin? She wrote me a letter and told me you have a small we we and that you smell like onions. LOL Said she had to bring you to the Vet to get a penicillin shot cause you got the clap. Adviced me not to acknowledge your my dad cause you spent all the child support on a crack hor and never took care of personal biz..

On a more serious note.


I Still havent seen anything I asked for.............

So with that Ill let yall post all kinds of funny and demeaning things about your son and that way you can feel all warm inside tonight when you fall asleep next to your Labrador

Im seriously done with this post.
Have a good one folks


----------



## 89grand (Nov 23, 2006)

The Baron Groog said:


> ^This is what Lycan has been trying to get into your thick skull-if the impedence isn't flat it affects the crossover slope as the cap/coil value has remained the same!


That guy has been doing this in the whole thread. He says something, then 10 seconds later claims he never said it even though his original post is still there for anyone to see. He's taken something Lycan, myself or someone else has said, then turns around and repeats it to us like he's telling us something we didn't know, just after loudly stating it wasn't true 10 minutes before that.

It's weird, I've never seen anyone quite like this before. He has an obscure mental disorder it seems.


----------



## The Baron Groog (Mar 15, 2010)

^yup, he's a weapons grade moron, hope they don't ban him though-he's just too amusing.

All the quotes he's put up back up everyone elses arguements, either he can't read what he quotes or he just likes being humilated in public!


----------



## The Baron Groog (Mar 15, 2010)

^ that's the point of these sites, but it makes me laugh that The Big Beat claims to have made countless cross-overs and really know his stuff can't understand why the Zobel network is used. I've never made a cross-over, I've used caps to HP mids and used coils to LP a sub-nothing more then that, but even I can understand what Lycan was explaining to him and even quickly load a link so he could do it himself to "see it with his own eyes".

Some people cannot be told! But they do provide amusing targets for everyone elses cannons


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

cajunner said:


> I used to have this disorder.
> 
> It's called "smartest guy in the dumb room" complex.
> 
> ...


What will take you far is the fine values drilled into you, back in the small town. It really will. The day you forget those, you'll just be another city slicker....


----------



## ncv6coupe (Oct 25, 2009)

cajunner said:


> How do you exasperate an exacerbation problem?


, see your not as dumb as thebeat wants you to be, you have a WELL trained eye danielson!


----------



## ncv6coupe (Oct 25, 2009)

The Baron Groog said:


> either he can't read what he quotes or he just likes being humilated in public!


I don't even see it as him being humiliated, he was just corrected numerous times and chose to flip flop his strong points to other incorrect stuff YET we still tried to help by offering better examples of how things really work and he chooses to ignore them. At least this really helped anyone who didn't know how passives work before so after this thread they should be able to fire up the soldering iron for their own sonic magic.


----------



## The Baron Groog (Mar 15, 2010)

I'd disagree, but we're all entitled to our own opinions Personally I would find it humiliating to say one thing and then use a quote which completely disagrees with what I'd just stated as fact...


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

cajunner said:


> about 30 miles south of New Orleans.
> 
> Don't worry about language, I enjoy the added spiciness.


Interesting..


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

89grand said:


> Are you seriously going to try and claim you did not say a Zobel reduces cone movement? Seriously, you are? Because you just ****ing said it...and I quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You may have interpreted it as a suggestion but show me where I said those exact words!


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

Volenti said:


> I'll recklessly jump in here to comment on the effect zobels have on a driver.
> 
> It's not just external impedance compensation (to facilitate correct passive x-over performance) it also progressively damps the driver electrically by applying a load, the resistor, across the voicecoil as the frequency rises (so in effect, yes it does indeed damp cone movement, at high frequencies). Zobels wern't designed to do that, it's a side effect. This isn't audiofool nonsence, just the application of physics.
> 
> ...


THANK YOU! Im glad someone understands what I been saying... And you gave an example! VERY GOOD! Thank you...


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

sqnut said:


> C'mon dude grow up. You're behaving like an immature prick that you probably are.
> 
> If the end point of this debate is 'better sound', I would have to say that you are so far removed from the 'sound', that this whole debate is piontless. If you were even vaguely in the ball park of good sound, you'd know that active is better than passive, given a min level of dsp.
> 
> Remember you will almost never calculate and measure your way to good sound, neither will you get there by reading junk off the internet. You have to hear and tune your way there. Time alignment / L&R Eq / xover points / slopes / gains / angles on your tweets etc etc are all tuning tools. The more you have the better you will control the sound. Active gives you more tools than passive and thats why its generally better.


Sorry but thats just not correct... Active x-overs give for flexibility. And yea you can have a awesome system with an all active setup. But to say we should all not read the "junk" on the net is telling everybody do nt bther coming to DIYMA cause its junk. People all over teh world have educated themselves on so many levels due to internet. Oh and yea I agree you do have more tool dwith active- But I only need one that works.


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

d5sc said:


> From Boston Acoustic's site as to why they recommend their passive crossovers:
> 
> Tech Info - Mobile Audio - Boston Acoustics - Speakers, Home Theater, Mobile Audio, Sound Systems and More
> 
> ...


Of all the posts I have to say this is the best. It says exactly what I been saying. But of course Lycan and the majority of you think its all ********. Im sure you all think Boston Acoutics pays there engineers to make expensive passive x-over just for marketing....Thanks for this post..:laugh:


----------



## ncv6coupe (Oct 25, 2009)

That boston post is 7th grade electronics class speak. Build ten and have 10 different sounds, shut up marketing. If I put a 6 db cut on my active eq at 2khz guess what, it sounds different. Beat you get so excited when there is something you can hold on to to support your argument but again, once you start getting into passive equalization by way of crossover contouring, when you get active equalization to level up the playing field, passive loses IN THE DAMNed CAR. Quit trying to dodge the facts of dominant listening environments and preset equipment.


----------



## The Baron Groog (Mar 15, 2010)

What Boston should have answered in BOLD:



d5sc said:


> From Boston Acoustic's site as to why they recommend their passive crossovers:
> 
> Tech Info - Mobile Audio - Boston Acoustics - Speakers, Home Theater, Mobile Audio, Sound Systems and More
> 
> ...


Basically all the answers are for noobs (no offence) and anyone with enough experience to go active wouldn't have asked any of the questions in the 1st place...


----------



## Cruzer (Jul 16, 2010)

89grand said:


> It's weird, I've never seen anyone quite like this before. He has an obscure mental disorder it seems.


so whos worse him or sqassassin ?


----------



## 89grand (Nov 23, 2006)

Cruzer said:


> so whos worse him or sqassassin ?


I think they may be the same person.


----------



## 89grand (Nov 23, 2006)

The-Big-Beat said:


> You may have interpreted it as a suggestion but show me where I said those exact words!


I quoted you saying it, and you're still saying you didn't? Unbelievable.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

89grand said:


> I quoted you saying it, and you're still saying you didn't? Unbelievable.


Don't feed the troll


----------



## The Baron Groog (Mar 15, 2010)

sqnut said:


> Don't feed the troll


No, please do-his ramblings are keeping me amused at work!


----------



## ncv6coupe (Oct 25, 2009)

^^Almost best 4 days of my diyma life!


----------



## bboyvek (Dec 16, 2008)

This thread is for the win!! 

I suggest we have a dumbest member of the month thread!!


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

bboyvek said:


> This thread is for the win!!
> 
> I suggest we have a dumbest member of the month thread!!


Lets have a whats your name number and address thread. Its so cool calling each other names isnt it?.... Fun right? All laughs isnt it? Want to bring it outside the forum?


----------



## bboyvek (Dec 16, 2008)

First of all, why do you assume I was talking about you?
And sure thing, we can take it outside the forum


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

By the swings at 3 o'clock? :laugh:


----------



## bboyvek (Dec 16, 2008)

t3sn4f2 said:


> By the swings at 3 o'clock? :laugh:


LMAO


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

bboyvek said:


> First of all, why do you assume I was talking about you?
> And sure thing, we can take it outside the forum


This is for yall u that participated in this thread. Make it clear who your talking about. Then take it out the forum with that person. Wanna laugh? Cool with me.... Step up.... Ill give you a chance to laugh in my face.... Send me your ****ing name and address.... Or shut the **** up and close the thread. 
I came here to give a simple opinion. As usual it turned out to be a name calling match that I didnt start. Sick of the kiddy **** that goes on in these forums.
I got nothing to do for a long time. So if you wanna make this personal I can do that.... Otherwise leave it alone and close the ****ing thread...


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

cajunner said:


> I'd research the UFC thread in off-topic before calling just anybody out for duels..


Duel?
Dual?
This aint the ****ing wild west........

Sure as **** aint a play ground. Dam shame UFC gotta get in on what shoulda been a simple thread about crossovers. but some pricks here just love to make trouble.... Im tellin you. This thread better get closed or **** will get worse.


----------



## ncv6coupe (Oct 25, 2009)

<Slight urination in my underwear and tears in my eyes!!!!!! By the swing... Classic


----------



## 89grand (Nov 23, 2006)

The-Big-Beat said:


> This is for yall u that participated in this thread. Make it clear who your talking about. Then take it out the forum with that person. Wanna laugh? Cool with me.... * Step up.... Ill give you a chance to laugh in my face.... Send me your ****ing name and address.... Or shut the **** up* and close the thread.
> I came here to give a simple opinion. As usual it turned out to be a name calling match that I didnt start. Sick of the kiddy **** that goes on in these forums.
> I got nothing to do for a long time. So if you wanna make this personal I can do that.... Otherwise leave it alone and close the ****ing thread...


Are you threatening members here? We frown on that.

Secondly, you've said numerous childish names and 3rd grade level "cut downs" towards almost everybody in this thread. The name calling and childish ******** is 20:1 of you vs everyone else in this thread combined.

I personally will beg the staff NOT to close this thread. It should remain open for all to enjoy.:laugh:


----------



## s4turn (Jun 17, 2009)

The-Big-Beat said:


> Duel?
> Dual?
> This aint the ****ing wild west........
> 
> Sure as **** aint a play ground. Dam shame UFC gotta get in on what shoulda been a simple thread about crossovers. but some pricks here just love to make trouble.... Im tellin you. This thread better get closed or **** will get worse.


I think threads that go into a deep discussion about how things work are great.
I think thats why DIYMA is such a good place IMHO

so much info and so many knowledgeable people on these forums. In Which I have lots of respect for!

if you cant accept that why even stay around?
depending on the problem.. who wants a stupid single post answer.

if you dont like that, then go off to other forums and post your theories up.

no point threatening the members here. It just makes you like even more childish.


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

s4turn said:


> I think threads that go into a deep discussion about how things work are great.
> I think thats why DIYMA is such a good place IMHO
> 
> so much info and so many knowledgeable people on these forums. In Which I have lots of respect for!
> ...




Funny. NONE of you pussies have sent me your info...... Figures.
Only thing embarrasing is the big vagina stamped on this forum....
And YEA I did call names... No I didnt start it. Dont close the thread. But when **** really starts happening out of the forum, and I asked to remove this thread. Then it will be the forum that contributed to the end result.


----------



## The Baron Groog (Mar 15, 2010)

Flat 42,
George Street,
Birmingham,
B3 1QA
UK

I'll refund your plane tickets if you beat me


----------



## hottcakes (Jul 14, 2010)




----------



## The Baron Groog (Mar 15, 2010)

hottcakes said:


>


^lol

It's amazing how many DIYMA discussions end in: I'll take you outside

:laugh:


----------



## BoostedNihilist (Mar 3, 2008)

The big beat, you're such a big ****ing man, how bout you post up your information for all to see. You're so justified in your position and tough as can be so this should be no problem for you whatsoever.


----------



## 89grand (Nov 23, 2006)

The big beat meets 89grand


----------



## s4turn (Jun 17, 2009)

The-Big-Beat said:


> Funny. NONE of you pussies have sent me your info...... Figures.
> Only thing embarrasing is the big vagina stamped on this forum....
> And YEA I did call names... No I didnt start it. Dont close the thread. But when **** really starts happening out of the forum, and I asked to remove this thread. Then it will be the forum that contributed to the end result.


this sums you up Big boy









I live in New Zealand if that helps


----------



## The Baron Groog (Mar 15, 2010)

89grand said:


> The Big Beat meets 89grand


Dammit, work pc's speaker vol too low to hear this, will have to wait until later!


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

Introducing Lycan the super heroe


----------



## 89grand (Nov 23, 2006)

WEAK!

That figures that would be the best you could do. Interjecting your own gay fantasies, but I guess that's all you had.


----------



## BoostedNihilist (Mar 3, 2008)

yep, total weaksauce


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

lol pretty funny stuff.... lol.... and you all know it! lol


----------



## ncv6coupe (Oct 25, 2009)

89grand said:


> The big beat meets 89grand


that is precisely word for ___ing word what I just told you, Get the ___ out of my office right now, :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

ncv6coupe said:


> that is precisely word for ___ing word what I just told you, Get the ___ out of my office right now, :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:


lol.... yea so funny. ha ha ha..  .. idiot


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

That was gay...yes, I am talking about your fantasies (The-Big-Beat-Himself-Off). The cartoon was dumb, not funny and not nearly as good as 89Grand. You lose...AGAIN!!!!


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

Niebur3 said:


> That was gay...yes, I am talking about your fantasies (The-Big-Beat-Himself-Off). The cartoon was dumb, not funny and not nearly as good as 89Grand. You lose...AGAIN!!!!


yes i know your gay. its ok. you r not alone. 89grand will hold your hand... :laugh: and stopp grabbing my ass.. cause im not a ****.


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

Seriously, that is all you got? Seriously? Oh, yeah, I almost forgot...."I know you are but what am I?" - More your speed!


----------



## bboyvek (Dec 16, 2008)

cajunner said:


> if this is DIYMA's "jumping in" of The Big Beat...
> 
> well, let's keep him from being tspence'd, for a bit yet.
> 
> ...


No one has ever said that passives are worthless or unnecessary. Passives crossovers on the other hand are inferior to active crossovers (period) and that's something he cant get. He keeps on telling everyone that passives are superior due to the use of zobel networks and he is WRONG


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

bboyvek said:


> No one has ever said that passives are worthless or unnecessary. Passives crossovers on the other hand are inferior to active crossovers (period) and that's something he cant get. He keeps on telling everyone that passives are superior due to the use of zobel networks and he is WRONG


LOL... Worthless useless... Hmmm..interesting.. Im so hurt. Not really.
if you need proof that someone keeps saying they are worthless and unnecessary then read:
To quote Lycan, the person that started this whole ******** bandwagon about passives being useless, "There's nothing you can do with a passive ... including notch, baffle step compensation, phase compensation, etc ... that can't be done more easily, more accurately, and MUCH more flexibly with an active network." Also a quote from the same person "Stop buying into the marketing hype." suggesting passives are useless and worthless. Do i need to quote more? So I ask, show me an active x-over with all these circuits in it for car audio. And even for home audio.! You cant! There is no such thing. For the very slight chance there is, maybe the Alpine and Old Sony Xes or the Pioneer systems costing thousands might have all these features. But surely not the everyday car stereo with usual amps. My whole point is that fact! A passive can be made to do ALL that I just quoted! Isnt that what part of the price is in your expensive speaker components? True it takes money, time and brains. BUT when you got it built its worth it! Thats why the Boston speakers and so many other high end speakers sound so good. They not only have nice speakers, they have awesome passives.
Look.. Reread the responses I made. I never said passives are superior. I said they both have there superior uses and both have there drawbacks. Again, here is another one that tries to twist my words. The closest I said to that is the fact that an active x-over does not incorporate a zobel. A passive sometimes does. You can not find an active setup with a zobel. Certain people here keep sayin a zobel is useless but the truth is that a zobel does help. Zobels are used in a very wide range of applications. True the zobel does help keep the crossover at its intended cutoff. But it also helps with SQ. Not only SQ but can help in power lines. Ive said it before. Google. But these turds rather make a dumb video of me saying things I didnt say and twisting my words. truth is Active is more flexible. You can tune in to what sounds best to you. But a passive can be made to make the speaker sound flattest or as neutral as possible. Then its upto you to tweak that neutral/flatness to your environment. In my opinion as well as many professionals. Its always best to start tweaking the sound from a point where the speaker is at is flattest frequency response. An Active xover just separates the sound. A passive can be made to do much more. So, the argument is all about that. That is teh whole topic. And what has happened is that these guys think an active setup is far superior. I havent seen any proof of that other then me agreeing it is more flexible. When talking about time alignment , that is not even in the x-over realm. You need a time correction tool. Passive X-overs can fix some phase problems which some yo yo said phase is the same as time but it isnt. Its to the point where I can look at the sky. say it blue but these baby wipes will say its yellow cause they just have to be against what i say. Its cool to be in there little group. No matter how wrong they are. They chuckle and make fun and thats there little way. Truth is, it takes a man to build a passive system. Brains. Any *****, kid can dial in on an active x-over and get the speakers to sound decent. And when I type that they cry and make videos and posts silly pics to detour the attention on there lil sissy remarks..


----------



## bboyvek (Dec 16, 2008)

The-Big-Beat said:


> LOL... Worthless useless... Hmmm..interesting.. Im so hurt. Not really.
> if you need proof that someone keeps saying they are worthless and unnecessary then read:
> To quote Lycan, the person that started this whole ******** bandwagon about passives being useless, "There's nothing you can do with a passive ... including notch, baffle step compensation, phase compensation, etc ... that can't be done more easily, more accurately, and MUCH more flexibly with an active network." Also a quote from the same person "Stop buying into the marketing hype." suggesting passives are useless and worthless. *Is that really what you get from reading those responses? to me those responses only state that an active crossover is more flexible and can do anything a passive crossover can do*
> 
> ...


*

Sigh *


----------



## 89grand (Nov 23, 2006)

^^^^And now you can see why people think my movie was funny, because it was an accurate depiction of you. You're still saying the same stupid **** that you did in my movie, you haven't learned a single thing yet.:laugh:

Yours was not funny, as all it contained was junior high gay humor.

Let's try this one more time:
*
ZOBEL NETWORKS SERVE ZERO PURPOSE IN AN ACTIVE SETUP. THAT IS WHY THEY AREN'T INCORPORATED IN ACTIVE SETUPS. THEY ARE FOR PASSIVE CROSSOVERS ONLY, WITH DRIVERS THAT NEED THEM.

ZOBELS ARE NOT A UNIVERSAL FIX FOR SQ, THEY ARE NOT JUST ADDED TO EVERY SPEAKER FOR THE **** OF IT. SOME SPEAKERS BENEFIT A LOT MORE FROM A ZOBEL THAN OTHERS DO. MIDRANGE SPEAKERS ARE GENERALLY THE ONLY PLACE THEY ARE USED, WHEN THEY ARE USED.

THERE ARE ACTUALLY SOME DRAW BACKS TO ZOBELS BELIEVE IT OR NOT, NAMELY A REDUCTION IN POWER DELIVERED TO THE SPEAKERS THAT GETS LOST AS HEAT IN THE ZOBEL NETWORK, AND A MORE DIFFICULT LOAD FOR THE AMPLIFIER.*

Now, with that said, no one here has ever said passive crossovers with a zobel network are bad, or don't work, or anything like that. Our point, is that active setups are better overall. I can't believe your brain cannot process that.


----------



## 89grand (Nov 23, 2006)

^^^Let's keep in mind not all passive crossovers are created equal. Sure, the top level, most expensive component speakers may have pretty sophisticated passive crossovers, but most component sets do not. They often have nothing more than an inductor, a capacitor, and maybe some sort of resistor for the tweeter level adjustment. Some crossovers don't even filter the mid, they just filter the tweeter.

I'd say the majority of component speakers on the market have pretty basic passive crossovers with no notch filters or zobels, and only a few have very good ones that may include such things.


----------



## 89grand (Nov 23, 2006)

I think this thread moved from just BA, quite some time ago, but anyway, here's a Boston crossover. Doesn't look too high tech to me, in fact I don't even see an inductor in it.


----------



## Volenti (Feb 17, 2010)

89grand said:


> I think this thread moved from just BA, quite some time ago, but anyway, here's a Boston crossover. Doesn't look too high tech to me, in fact I don't even see an inductor in it.


The 2 black components to the far right are electrolytic (yuck) caps, the other 2 are ferrite core inductors in black heatshrink (yuck again)

Assuming it's 12db/oct (it may not be), there's actually no zobel being used


----------



## Volenti (Feb 17, 2010)

cajunner said:


> okay, just looking at it.
> 
> 2 smaller resistors, means 3 settings for the tweeter. 0db, -2db, -4db or something like that.
> 
> ...


I'd have to look at the underside circuit to be sure, but I doubt there's a zobel present (there rarely is on the mid-low end seperates) besides, 6ohm is starting to get a little on the high side in value to be a zobel resistor for a 4ohm driver and there's no need for a 10w zobel resistor, I've used 1w resistors for zobel resistors plenty of times with no overheating issues, the average power they dissapate is very low.

Regardless, as you said, it's a crappy little x-over that you can happily chuck in the closet and use an active instead (or a properly designed passive to suit the install)


----------



## 89grand (Nov 23, 2006)

I think that there is a zobel in there, because that 32uf capacitor wouldn't make any sense other wise, but yeah, that resistor at 6 ohms is weird unless that midrange speaker has an Re of about 4.8 ohms which would be odd for a supposed 4 ohm nominal set.

After looking closer at it, that's the only reason I can see for that particular resistor, and that cap value. Still, the crossover looks pretty ****ty either way. Probably good enough though for anyone considering that set.


----------



## MiniVanMan (Jun 28, 2005)

You've got 3 settings for the attenuation. No attenuation, and 2 others, possibly 0, and -3db. That accounts for the resistors, ALL of them.

The inductors are awful, as well as the caps. Using an electrolytic cap in a parallel circuit is fine, but in series with the driver is a poor choice. 

Those inductors again, are awful. I have no problem with ferrite core inductors. Yeah, there's more hysteresis with ferrite core, and some other issues, but they're generally inaudible if the winding is thick enough (i.e. 16 gauge or bigger). That small of a gauge of wire, along with the ferrite core is going to run into power/heat issues pretty quickly. That's a pretty ****ty crossover, by any standards. I would expect a lot more from Boston Acoustics at any price point. Those are obviously from a lower end model. 

Oh, it's likely it's a 12db on the woofer, and 18db on the tweeter network. Maybe not. That small cap in the front of the network (orange) could also be a notch on the tweeter. Either way, it's a 12 db network with a notch, or it's a 12db on the woofer, and 18 on the tweeter. That explains all the components in there.


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

cajunner said:


> semantics might be taking this a bit too far, but let me debate you.
> 
> Passives are how speaker companies ensure their drivers play the intended frequencies, and also how they don't play the unintended frequencies.
> 
> ...


You all keep looking at this is a different way than it should be. Would you rather have a speaker with a flat response or a jacked up response? The goal of the passive that was designed by Boston is to make the speaker sound flat. You keep talking about in car response. Hey! dummies. All cars are different. They arent making the speaker sound flat in a particular car. They try to make it sound flat in a test chamber that is used universally on all speakers. Its upto you and your active setup to fix YOUR cars problem areas not Boston. Without the passive it will have bad dips and peaks that you will have much more trouble dealing with even using your eq. Even when its connected to the active setup the speaker and no passive at all , without the passive will have crazy frequency responses. Yes teh active xover will seperate the sound but it wont fix the odd humps and dips the passive can fix. So the job of the passive it to, one separate the sound and 2 flatten the sound. That is very basic. All this ******** about the active x-over fixing everything is lies. The speaker itself needs help. The active x-over cant do that. I keep saying this over and over but noone see what Im saying. The people who keep saying that are very misinformed. Show me a speaker with a perfect flat response. There is none. You take any speaker and connect it to an amp with an active -over. You think the odd frequency response it has will magically disappear? No. You are a idiot if you think that. You need to fix it 2 ways. You can buy a multi thousand dollar setup with all the gadgets to fix the response so you can win the nationals. Or build a specific passive for the speakers and use that in tandem with time correction and a little active dividing at the midbass and bass level. The midrange and tweeters are very crucuail and those are the speakers you want to use passives on the most.


----------



## MiniVanMan (Jun 28, 2005)

The-Big-Beat said:


> You all keep looking at this is a different way than it should be. Would you rather have a speaker with a flat response or a jacked up response? The goal of the passive that was designed by Boston is to make the speaker sound flat. You keep talking about in car response. Hey! dummies. All cars are different. They arent making the speaker sound flat in a particular car. They try to make it sound flat in a test chamber that is used universally on all speakers. Its upto you and your active setup to fix YOUR cars problem areas not Boston. Without the passive it will have bad dips and peaks that you will have much more trouble dealing with even using your eq. Even when its connected to the active setup the speaker and no passive at all , without the passive will have crazy frequency responses. Yes teh active xover will seperate the sound but it wont fix the odd humps and dips the passive can fix. So the job of the passive it to, one separate the sound and 2 flatten the sound. That is very basic. All this ******** about the active x-over fixing everything is lies. The speaker itself needs help. The active x-over cant do that. I keep saying this over and over but noone see what Im saying. The people who keep saying that are very misinformed. Show me a speaker with a perfect flat response. There is none. You take any speaker and connect it to an amp with an active -over. You think the odd frequency response it has will magically disappear? No. You are a idiot if you think that. You need to fix it 2 ways. You can buy a multi thousand dollar setup with all the gadgets to fix the response so you can win the nationals. Or build a specific passive for the speakers and use that in tandem with time correction and a little active dividing at the midbass and bass level. The midrange and tweeters are very crucuail and those are the speakers you want to use passives on the most.


People see what you're saying, but you're wrong. Plain and simple.

A passive crossover is no better, and I'll argue inferior to active processing, at smoothing out frequency response.

In varying cars the frequency response of any speaker will be different. There is no way (impossible) for a passive crossover to account for all the issues a car can introduce. You would need to build a dedicated crossover for every vehicle in every mounting location that would be used in that vehicle. Very costly, and time prohibitive. 

I will agree that there are benefits to both. However, it can't be argued that active processing is FAR superior to passive when it comes to ease of use. 

Now, understand, I'm saying "processing". Not just an active crossover. Contour circuits, notch filters, etc, that can be used in passives, can all be mimicked with equalization. So, when you look at the whole package of active crossovers, coupled with active equalization, and you simple can't beat that with any passive when it comes to ease of use.

No passive crossover out there handles all the frequency response variations of a speaker. It's simply no possible. So, your argument that a passive smooths out frequency response is just wrong. Yeah, it may be used to correct for baffle diffraction, but that doesn't really exist in a car, so whatever. The component count that would be required to build a passive that corrected just 3 peaks and dips in frequency response would be massive, and complex to the point of uselessness. 

But, if you're going to maintain your stance, I'm going to need to see an actual example of a working passive crossover that does what you maintain they do. Don't just tell me a name, SHOW me the crossover and the guts.


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

MiniVanMan said:


> People see what you're saying, but you're wrong. Plain and simple.
> 
> A passive crossover is no better, and I'll argue inferior to active processing, at smoothing out frequency response.
> 
> ...


Read my Bold response


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

The-Big-Beat said:


> Read my Bold response


Show me the money!


----------



## 89grand (Nov 23, 2006)

The-Big-Beat said:


> Read my Bold response


I'm impressed, you didn't call him gay and stupid...yet. I'm sure it's coming though.

BTW, you are wrong on every level.:laugh:


----------



## ncv6coupe (Oct 25, 2009)

89grand said:


> The big beat meets 89grand


that is precisely word for ___ing word what I just told you, Get the ___ out of my office right now, :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: UNBELIEVABLE just UNBELIEVABLE


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

89grand said:


> I'm impressed, you didn't call him gay and stupid...yet. I'm sure it's coming though.
> 
> BTW, you are wrong on every level.:laugh:


Yea thats what they say. But I have a speaker system in my living room that I built, enclosure, crossovers, everything! Sounds fantastic! All cause I have no idea what Im doing... :surprised:


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 12, 2008)

........


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 12, 2008)

The-Big-Beat said:


> Yea thats what they say. But I have a speaker system in my living room that I built, enclosure, crossovers, everything! Sounds fantastic! All cause I have no idea what Im doing... :surprised:


I am sure they do, home and car passives are alot different as your home passives were designed and built around the driver, box and mounting location of the drivers. But no car passive is done like this. There have been attempts that worked well, like the Alpine passives, those older huge ones that allowed for different mounting locations and such, but those will still never be like a home passive. 

I am not knocking passives, I run them I dont do active. But car audio passives are not designed like higher end home passives.


----------



## 89grand (Nov 23, 2006)

The-Big-Beat said:


> Yea thats what they say. But I have a speaker system in my living room that I built, enclosure, crossovers, everything! Sounds fantastic! All cause I have no idea what Im doing... :surprised:


Great, just more talk. Prove it instead!

Provide pics and complete details on exactly how you designed the crossover, and why you did what you did, and what drivers are used. Oh yeah, and pics.


----------



## MiniVanMan (Jun 28, 2005)

The-Big-Beat said:


> THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I SAID! What you all dont get is that the ONLY way you will fix the frequency response AFTER you install it in a car is using your eq and other gadgets. BUT do you want to start equalizing a speaker that has an already bad response or do you want a speaker that has a flat response so you can now have a level ground to work on? Even the Boston website states that an active simply cant do certain overlapping frequencies that there speakers require for fantastic sound. But you all say that is just hype. It isnt! What they mean by overlapping is taking the cutoff of the crossover and merging them in way that makes the frequency response as flat as possible. That is hard to do when taking into consideration the actual speakers response. So you have to try and calculate the cutoffs and slopes properly so the merge of the cutoffs is at the proper place for the speaker. Actives give a few generic choices. Those choices may not be what fits the speaker properly. Yes it will sound deent but when competing , the meter will show dips and peaks that the active didnt fix.


Oh boy. You have been disillusioned with marketing hype. 

The frequency response of two speakers combining at the crossover point is a function of time, power and space (i.e. phase, power, and polar responses). 

Change ANY of those three factors and the passive crossover is no longer optimal. So, with that being said, there is ABSOLUTELY no way that a passive crossover can have a coherent phase response in multiple mounting locations. Change the distance to the tweeter by 1 inch and you now have a different phase response. Since, Boston has NOT published under what conditions their crossovers were designed, there is absolutely no way, without EXTREME luck (you have better chances of winning the lottery), of producing that vaulted phase response you talk about that their passives would provide. It's not impossible, but VERY, VERY unlikely.

The ONLY benefit of passive crossovers versus active is the simplicity of the overall system.

So, my next question to you is, how does a passive crossover equalize a speaker's frequency response? Perhaps you can educate me on this one, because while I'm reading what you're saying, and you really seem to believe it, I simply don't know what you're talking about. I have some personal examples, but I want to see what you display for your argument.

Any example that I provide to support your argument could easily be debunked by proving that I could do the same thing actively, and not have to spend days of tweaking a passive to get it right. 

See, what you're not getting is that active and passive crossovers do EXACTLY the same thing. They accomplish it differently, but the end results are the same. Both have drawbacks, and both have benefits. There is no "better" as a broad statement.


----------



## ncv6coupe (Oct 25, 2009)

Minivanman I commend you on your attempt to de-mystify the babble that the big beat speaks of but if you read the whole thread, you are trying to win the kentucky derby with a dead horse. We been over this over and over and over and over. I don't know where we could have possibly went wrong with our explanations earlier but I'll sit back and see how this plays out.


----------



## Allan74 (Jun 17, 2010)

The-Big-Beat said:


> Yea thats what they say. But I have a speaker system in my living room that I built, enclosure, crossovers, everything! Sounds fantastic! All cause I have no idea what Im doing... :surprised:


...but how does it sound in your car?


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

MiniVanMan said:


> See, what you're not getting is that active and passive crossovers do EXACTLY the same thing. They accomplish it differently, but the end results are the same. Both have drawbacks, and both have benefits. There is no "better" as a broad statement.


Not to contradict MVM, but I would have no issues with saying that active _is_ better than passive. Like MVM mentioned a passive gives you one fixed xover point and fixed slopes. This may work in some car with a specific driver placement, but will it work in yours? What are the chances? 

Variable network settings, TA, L/R eq are all tuning tools that you use together to give you literally thousands of different unique settings of which you are looking for that one setting that is right for your placement and car. Only an active network will give this flexibility.

My active network lets me have 48 realistic xover options (points and slopes) vs the one offered by the passive. My chances of winning the lottery suddenly went up. TA adds adds many more options and hence chances. Unless you're bi-amped passively, you're not going to be able to phase correct each driver independently and for its specific location. BIG GAIN.

Add all this up and now you've get to choose 1,000's of numbers to get that one one number right. My chances of winning suddenly went up. That's good enough for me to make that broad statement.

Look, if you're going to use a forum primarily for commercial purposes, keeping the trollish tendencies under wraps, would greatly boost the chances of success for your enterprise. Much like active, and knowing how to use it along with the other tools, would boost the chances of getting close to 'the sound' in your car.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

:snacks:

Caj, you and TBB need some serious seat time in MVM vehicle.


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

Allan74 said:


> ...but how does it sound in your car?


They are too big to fit in my car. They are 3 ways. a 7. a 3 and ribbon tweeters. I have them bi amp capable. The mid and tweeter is on a seperate circuit and the low end is on its own as well. The low end is so well tuned that it rools off just right when the bass hits so it doesnt bottom out! Its a ported system. I could take pics but why? I even kept the x-over schematics. And I think the driver models.


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

cajunner said:


> look at my post MVM.
> 
> axis mounting provides for exactly the known environment you're speaking about, and allows for a perfect passive crossover, within mounting limitations.
> 
> ...


THANK YOU! I read your responses and you are ahead of the group. Again, I may not explain things too good but you seem to be getting the grasp of things.


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

cajunner said:


> Look at Boston Acoustics' higher lines.
> 
> They have a jumper with 2 possibilities, one is called "axis" and the other "component"
> 
> ...


BRAVO!


----------



## 89grand (Nov 23, 2006)

The-Big-Beat said:


> THANK YOU! I read your responses and you are ahead of the group. Again, I may not explain things too good but you seem to be getting the grasp of things.


I don't know if you're teaching him anything or not, I hope not, but you sure as hell aren't teaching the rest of us anything.

Besides, haven't you called him an idiot several times in this thread, and maybe even called him gay? 

Boy your fickle. Here's you:

"You don't agree with me, well then you're an idiot"

"Oh, you said something similar to the nonsense I've been saying, well then yeah, see you're smarter than everyone else here"

"Oh wait, you just said something I don't agree with, you're a ******"


----------



## 89grand (Nov 23, 2006)

The-Big-Beat said:


> The low end is so well tuned that it rools off just right when the bass hits so it doesnt bottom out!


LMFAO!


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

89grand said:


> I don't know if you're teaching him anything or not, I hope not, but you sure as hell aren't teaching the rest of us anything.
> 
> Besides, haven't you called him an idiot several times in this thread, and maybe even called him gay?
> 
> ...


I did call him a name or 2 but said it in a ******* way only us Dirty South people can relate too. You are the *** 89grand. And so what if you dont understand the ideas I tried to convey? As for as you are concerned passives are useless! The majority of Cajuns responses were accurate and some were just questions.


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

89grand said:


> LMFAO!


WTF are you laughin at? I cant wait to hear this bogus response.


----------



## 89grand (Nov 23, 2006)

The-Big-Beat said:


> I did call him a name or 2 but said it in a ******* way only us Dirty South people can relate too. You are the *** 89grand. And so what if you dont understand the ideas I tried to convey? As for as you are concerned passives are useless! The majority of Cajuns responses were accurate and some were just questions.


Can someone translate this mess?


----------



## 89grand (Nov 23, 2006)

The-Big-Beat said:


> WTF are you laughin at? I cant wait to hear this bogus response.


I quoted precisely what I was laughing at. What more do you need to know? 

BTW, how many zobels do those boom boxes you made have?


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

89grand said:


> I quoted precisely what I was laughing at. What more do you need to know?
> 
> BTW, how many zobels do those boom boxes you made have?


So what you are trying to say is that a person cant make a speaker so that it doesnt bottom out?
Here we go again....
Its NOT a boom box.


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

cajunner said:


> I'm just giving the devil his advocate, Big Beat isn't 100% wrong, he's just mixed up a bit.
> 
> The thing that I started with, and he still can't grasp, is that the car environment and conditions within that environment the speakers will experience, is unknowable and cannot be accounted for exactly.
> 
> ...


No Cajun. I do agree and do see what your saying. BUT I rather use a passive that fixes all the problems you mentioned earlier plus maybe a few more AND use an active eq and Active x-over for the bass and midbass seperation. 
To tell you the honest truth Ive bought all kinds of toys. I wanted to make my 3 way an all active system just to compare the difference. I had a 6 channel amp dedicated to each speaker! Each channel had a set of active xovers and gain control. I listened and played and watched movies and music and then made the passives. I stuck with the passives cause they sounded better. 
Also I have some 5.25's and tweeters in my ride with some small subs. I went all active and had each speaker on a channel. Sounded nice. But I then changed it, took out the active portion on the mids and tweeters and added some passives that came with the speakers but I actually tweaked them a little. The sound was more musical and had more subtle nuances. I could hear laughter in the back ground I couldnt before. So, Im not just saying this to piss people off. Ive been installing and building systems for 20 years! 
Its people like 89grand that just laugh for no good reason. They want proof. Why? All they will do is laugh and make up other ******** jokes. So this thread is gonna keep going like this forever.


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

cajunner said:


> you take things too literally.
> 
> and sometimes misinterpret them altogether.
> 
> ...


So, your a psychic?
Cause I didnt get any of that from LMAO...


----------



## 89grand (Nov 23, 2006)

The-Big-Beat said:


> So, your a psychic?
> Cause I didnt get any of that from LMAO...


He's right. I am trying to figure out what you know, and so far, it appears to be very little.

Also, of course you can prevent a speaker from over excursion, or bottoming out as you put it. Just tell me how you did it.

Please post pics of your boom boxes along with full speaker specs, port details (ie length, diameter and believed tuning frequency) and crossover schematics.

I find it interesting too, that after you added your "tweaked" passive crossovers, you heard laughter.


----------



## MiniVanMan (Jun 28, 2005)

Cajunner, I'm not reading everything past the initial response to my last post. It seems to be regurgitating the same info.

I'm not arguing with you one bit. I've been in this argument with the active crowd as well, trying to state the benefits of passives. Point is, if you're extreme to either end, then you probably don't know too much of what you're talking about. My whole point is active processing is easy, and flexible. A great boon to those that don't have the knowledge to build a functioning passive crossover (which goes WAY beyond slapping some numbers in a simple calculator). 

In home audio, baffle step response is very easily handled by a passive crossover. Break up nodes are also, generally easier to handle with a passive, as you pointed out about notching. 

What I will argue though, is that overall frequency response smoothing is MUCH easier to accomplish actively, with EQ. Whether it's induced by environment, or the speaker itself. It becomes fairly cost prohibitive to try and do frequency smoothing, passively.

Active is more expensive, and finding good equipment that can perform the specific tasks you need is not easy, nor cheap. The DCX2496 comes to mind as a decently priced unit that offers a ton of flexibility. Purely for argument's sake though.

I think the biggest challenge to overcome with active processing in a home speaker is baffle step compensation. That's where a passive will really win. In a car though? Baffle diffraction really doesn't exist, so that benefit is a wash. 

Ultimately, I hate this argument. It's no different that "which subwoofer is the best?". So much depends on application that there's no real answer to that.


----------



## MiniVanMan (Jun 28, 2005)

The-Big-Beat said:


> No Cajun. I do agree and do see what your saying. BUT I rather use a passive that fixes all the problems you mentioned earlier plus maybe a few more AND use an active eq and Active x-over for the bass and midbass seperation.
> To tell you the honest truth Ive bought all kinds of toys. I wanted to make my 3 way an all active system just to compare the difference. I had a 6 channel amp dedicated to each speaker! Each channel had a set of active xovers and gain control. I listened and played and watched movies and music and then made the passives. I stuck with the passives cause they sounded better.
> Also I have some 5.25's and tweeters in my ride with some small subs. I went all active and had each speaker on a channel. Sounded nice. But I then changed it, took out the active portion on the mids and tweeters and added some passives that came with the speakers but I actually tweaked them a little. The sound was more musical and had more subtle nuances. I could hear laughter in the back ground I couldnt before. So, Im not just saying this to piss people off. Ive been installing and building systems for 20 years!


This statement screams that you don't actually know what you're talking about. Here's why.

First, what tweak did you do to your passives that created a more musical experience, with more subtle nuances. Specifically, what was the tweak? Why did you feel it was necessary, and what testing did you do to get to the point where you realized what tweak was necessary? If you tell me you used your ears, you're completely full of ****. Saying that you managed to pick out where a cap value was off by a few micro farads by just "listening" is utter ****. So, what tweak, and how did you come to conclusion you did?

Next, in your car, you managed to create a passive crossover that sounded better than active? Great, but how? Did you actually do the math? What testing was done to determine frequency response, impedance, and phase that allowed you to build a passive that sounded better than your active setup. 

See, why that's actually bull **** is not because it can't be done, it's because you stated that your passive "sounds" better than the active. My first response is that you don't know what you're doing then, or you have very limited active processing capability. 

Other statements



> I had a 6 channel amp dedicated to each speaker! Each channel had a set of active xovers and gain control.


Huh?? Each speaker had a dedicated amplifier channel, or it had a dedicated 6 channel amp? Let's say the first is correct, and you just mistyped. Fine, though, what tells me you don't know what you're really doing is you're spouting off like you did something special by having a dedicated channel to each speaker. OF COURSE YOU DID, THAT'S HOW ACTIVE PROCESSING WORKS!! What the hell is "a set" of active crossovers? 

These are all very confusing statements, that show you really don't know what you're talking about.


----------



## 89grand (Nov 23, 2006)

Good luck MVM getting any real answer from big beet. All he does is speak in generalizations, extremely vague detail, and often tries to quote from websites he's read, but clearly misunderstood.

I mean he can't even answer any questions about the boom towers he supposedly built completely from scratch for his home system.


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

89grand said:


> He's right. I am trying to figure out what you know, and so far, it appears to be very little.
> 
> Also, of course you can prevent a speaker from over excursion, or bottoming out as you put it. Just tell me how you did it.
> 
> ...


 Um,, no.... Even if I wanted to I dont have the time to find the schematics and take pics and upload and explain. So to be blunt. No.


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

MiniVanMan said:


> This statement screams that you don't actually know what you're talking about. Here's why.
> 
> First, what tweak did you do to your passives that created a more musical experience, with more subtle nuances. Specifically, what was the tweak? Why did you feel it was necessary, and what testing did you do to get to the point where you realized what tweak was necessary? If you tell me you used your ears, you're completely full of ****. Saying that you managed to pick out where a cap value was off by a few micro farads by just "listening" is utter ****. So, what tweak, and how did you come to conclusion you did?
> 
> ...


Yea. yea. Whatever. The passives that came with the speakers had no zobel and used eletro caps. I upgraded the caps and added the zobel. So, if you say Im just an idiot for hearing a better sound after I did this you **** you. I have no need to make it up. Its still in my car that way now. 
I had 3 speakers for the left and 3 speakers for the right a total of 6 speakers. I had a 6 channel amp. Each channel was on a speaker. I then added an active x-over to to each channel. Again, my comparison was simple. All I did was replace the active x-overs with passive and voila. I liked the sound a bit better. So.. again, if you consider the way i say things ignorant the **** you! Sorry to be so blunt but who cares? Really tired of goin over an dover on this. Its gettin nowhere.


----------



## Danometal (Nov 16, 2009)

"Why does Boston Acoustics recommend passive crossovers?"

Yesterday I looked up the T/S paramters of Boston's G2 and G3 12s. I got in WinISD and played around. They SUCK ported according to what I saw. Sealed is where it's at with those subs, IMO. That's why they recommend...... 

.....Uhh, I just gave this thread a cursory glance and thought it said "Why does BA recommend passive RADIATORS!!" lol

- I didn't feel like cancelling my comment I started writing. 

So, my opinion is BA says passive Xovers to protect speakers from blowing, especially tweeters, but I've never ran fully active (just high passed from HU into passive Xovers, and active sub channel).

Peace.


----------



## 89grand (Nov 23, 2006)

The-Big-Beat said:


> Um,, no.... Even if I wanted to I dont have the time to find the schematics and take pics and upload and explain. So to be blunt. No.


Yeah, of course you don't have time for that.:laugh:

Oddly, you've had the time to talk out of your ass and make what, 50 posts of nonsense on this thread at least.


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

cajunner said:


> ^ this.
> 
> it's obvious that The Big Beat doesn't have DSP processing available, and hasn't heard what can be done with digital filters that step outside of Bessel/Butterworth compartmental configurations.
> 
> ...


Wrong again. Ive owned Old School Sony XES and Old school Pioneer for the car that had a bunch of toys. I also had a very nice Yamaha surround system that had all that stuff. Very nice indeed. I also have some DSP in my car wich I dont use. All it does it make the speakers sound un even.


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

89grand said:


> Yeah, of course you don't have time for that.:laugh:
> 
> Oddly, you've had the time to talk out of your ass and make what, 50 posts of nonsense on this thread at least.


At least 50. maybe more. But like I said. I really dont wanna waste my time.


----------



## 89grand (Nov 23, 2006)

The-Big-Beat said:


> ...you **** you...the **** you!...



You **** you? 
The **** you? 

How about some technical details for a change?

Btw, it's just "**** you", not *you* **** you, or *the* **** you.


----------



## Danometal (Nov 16, 2009)

lol
I totally stumbled into the wrong neighborhood I see. Are people really cursing others on diyma? Wow.


----------



## RMAT (Feb 13, 2007)

The-Big-Beat said:


> Yea. yea. Whatever. The passives that came with the speakers had no zobel and used eletro caps. I upgraded the caps and added the zobel. So, if you say Im just an idiot for hearing a better sound after I did this you **** you. I have no need to make it up. Its still in my car that way now.
> I had 3 speakers for the left and 3 speakers for the right a total of 6 speakers. I had a 6 channel amp. Each channel was on a speaker. I then added an active x-over to to each channel. Again, my comparison was simple. All I did was replace the active x-overs with passive and voila. I liked the sound a bit better. So.. again, if you consider the way i say things ignorant the **** you! Sorry to be so blunt but who cares? Really tired of goin over an dover on this. Its gettin nowhere.


I'd like to see pics of the "active crossovers" you took out and replaced. This should be good


----------



## 89grand (Nov 23, 2006)

Big beet, this may help you.

Dunning


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

89grand said:


> Big beet, this may help you.
> 
> Dunning


Oh I think he's familiar with that already..........
http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/1157077-post197.html



t3sn4f2 said:


> I think it's that time again.......


----------



## 89grand (Nov 23, 2006)

t3sn4f2 said:


> Oh I think he's familiar with that already..........
> http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/1157077-post197.html


Something tells me that showing him this once, twice, or maybe even 11 times may still not be enough.


----------



## ncv6coupe (Oct 25, 2009)

89grand said:


> Big beet, this may help you.
> 
> Dunning


*SCORE*


----------



## MiniVanMan (Jun 28, 2005)

The-Big-Beat said:


> Yea. yea. Whatever. The passives that came with the speakers had no zobel and used eletro caps. I upgraded the caps and added the zobel. So, if you say Im just an idiot for hearing a better sound after I did this you **** you.


So, your scientific approach was the crossover had cheap caps and no zobel, so therefore, if I change/add these things the passive will be better? 

That's it? There's no measuring? No simulation/modeling? I'm not asking you to present schematics, and take pictures of everything. I'm asking you to state your method, and "WHY" you're doing the things your doing.

So far, all we have is, I didn't like the way something sounded so I added a random component to my crossover and it sounds better. For somebody in an scientific argument, you just showed that you're way outclassed. 

Now, I'm not saying a zobel wouldn't help the network. I'm just saying that before I added something like that to an existing network, I'd better have some data to back up why I should. So far, you've been unable to present anything of that sort, so you're being called out as a hack.

You've come onto an internet forum to state your expertise on a particular subject matter, with no ability to articulate the subject matter, and are basing your arguments on what requires _*us*_ to speculate that you are an expert. You have no ability to articulate your expertise, but expect us to accept you as an expert because you say you are? See the problem here? Would you accept that from somebody else? Probably not. If you do, I have some oceanside property to sell you in Nevada.


----------



## The-Big-Beat (Nov 10, 2008)

MiniVanMan said:


> So, your scientific approach was the crossover had cheap caps and no zobel, so therefore, if I change/add these things the passive will be better?
> 
> That's it? There's no measuring? No simulation/modeling? I'm not asking you to present schematics, and take pictures of everything. I'm asking you to state your method, and "WHY" you're doing the things your doing.
> 
> ...


I dont need to measure a speaker to make a zobel. All I gotta do it get the specs. Upgrading to better caps is also a big improvement. But anyway.. im happy with it. If i didnt like it id go back to what it was. So apparently i did something right. or maybe i just did it to make all of you puzzzled and angry.. lol WTF ever... If you want data google. No way Im holding anybodies hand and taking them through school. If you cant google then figure out why one should use a zobel and upgrade to better caps, well. You shouldnt be here. You should be back in high school learnin how to read. SIGH...


----------



## ibanzil (Jun 29, 2008)

^^^^sir, please put the bottle down, state some facts or leave. Minivanman will prove with facts any statement he makes. Do the same or bow out.


----------



## 89grand (Nov 23, 2006)

The-Big-Beat said:


> I dont need to measure a speaker to make a zobel. All I gotta do it get the specs. Upgrading to better caps is also a big improvement. But anyway.. im happy with it. If i didnt like it id go back to what it was. So apparently i did something right. or maybe i just did it to make all of you puzzzled and angry.. lol WTF ever... If you want data google. No way Im holding anybodies hand and taking them through school. If you cant google then figure out why one should use a zobel and upgrade to better caps, well. You shouldnt be here. You should be back in high school learnin how to read. SIGH...


You dodge more questions than anybody I have ever seen. 

I guess you have to dodge them since I'm positive you have not done any of the things you claim you did. You didn't make your own home boom towers, you never modified a passive crossover. You never ran a full active system. 

You just read websites, then try to come in here sounding smart, and then when it back fired, you took projects other people did that you found on the internet and claimed them as your own as proof of your vast knowledge. So, of course you cannot provide one shred of technical detail about any of them because you never did it. Your attempt to prove your knowledge actually did just the opposite.


----------



## MiniVanMan (Jun 28, 2005)

The-Big-Beat said:


> I dont need to measure a speaker to make a zobel. All I gotta do it get the specs. Upgrading to better caps is also a big improvement. But anyway.. im happy with it. If i didnt like it id go back to what it was. So apparently i did something right. or maybe i just did it to make all of you puzzzled and angry.. lol WTF ever... If you want data google. No way Im holding anybodies hand and taking them through school. If you cant google then figure out why one should use a zobel and upgrade to better caps, well. You shouldnt be here. You should be back in high school learnin how to read. SIGH...


Once again, a clear inability to articulate any coherent, scientific thought. 

Why is upgrading caps a "big improvement"? I mean, sure, I can go onto google and see many debates about the sonic differences between different types of capacitors. I want to see if you can articulate a response as to why a polypropylene, silver foil, or whatever would result in an audible sonic difference. So far, all you've said is "Upgrading to better caps is also a big improvement." You've stated it as fact, but offer no supporting evidence of such. You came here wanting to be the expert, so be an expert. Support your statement. 

You're saying that I'm failing to understand, but in fact, I've stated that there's no way I could argue that your zobel didn't make the crossover better. I just want to know your method.

I do know your thought process now though. It's severely lacking, but whatever. 

The fact that you upgraded the capacitors and just added a zobel, based on specs and not actually measured, into a network that's not optimal for your vehicle to begin with, speaks volumes for your actual understanding of how crossovers work. 

If you actually had the knowledge, and the test equipment to properly do what you claim you can do, you would completely redesign the crossover from the ground up with actual measured data derived in the environment the speaker is being used in. Since none of this is present in your statements, it's very clear that you're a hack, and have very little understanding of what your talking about.


----------



## 89grand (Nov 23, 2006)

cajunner said:


> I find it easier to believe The Big Beat actually does know about how to put a basic crossover together, and probably has done so in the past. Just because he doesn't appear to be able to articulate his ideas very well, doesn't mean he can't follow a cookbook or plug numbers into a formula, or even better, fill in the blanks on an online program.


I would be willing to accept that maybe he has built a basic crossover, even though he doesn't appear to understand any of it, if he ever offered even one tiny shred of evidence that he has, or that he built his own boom boxes, or that he built anything at all if he had offered even a tiny shred of evidence. So far, he hasn't even produced the most basic and simple form of proof, a picture, a description of anything, I mean nothing at all. It's not a matter of articulating it, He's FOS!

Even if he did produce some proof that he has built a crossover, or anything at all, I would still suspect it wasn't done correctly.

But, at least he's got you convinced if no one else.


----------



## Volenti (Feb 17, 2010)

I'll leave the debate over weather there's any _inherent_ auidable difference between film/other caps and electrolytic caps after other factors have been corrected for, but in my imperical testing of electro vers film, electro is more inconsistant in capacitance _and_ ESR* measurements as well as having an overall average ESR signifigantly higher than the same size film cap. Indeed going through my passive x-over parts bins while investigating this I threw out numerous electro caps for being too far out of spec, mostly too high of an ESR.

Substituting a film cap with an ESR of 0.45 ohm (common with my 3.3 uf film caps) with an electro of the same capacitance with an ESR of anywhere from 0.9 ohms to 2.3 ohms** is pretty noticable just from the resistance change alone.


*Equivalant Series Resistance
**the ones I threw out didn't even register on my ESR meter they were so high, and it goes to 99 ohms


----------



## The Baron Groog (Mar 15, 2010)

89grand said:


> You dodge more questions than anybody I have ever seen.


Maybe he's a politician? Or would be better off being one


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

Lycan's posts basically make this thread. The-Big-Beat was only good in the sense that he infuriated the sleeping giant. We all got to benefit from the overwhelming amount of information that followed. 

On a knowledge scale of 1-10 with 10 being best in the field, this The-Big-Beat is a 2. That is not itself a problem, but claiming to be a 10 is. If he were not so dim he would acknowledge the faults in this argument but he's too busy claiming superiority. 

Passives are only good for entry level enthusiasts (home audio or car audio). Simply put, they are more dummy-proof. With a little bag of knowledge active will easily surpass passive. Active is not implemented across the industry because 99% of the users are in fact dummies when it comes to processing. 

Some benefits for dummies:
*With active if the head resets settings (think battery dies) and the user decides to blast off at high volume, tweeters may be destroyed with full range sound.
*With high noise floor amplification passive networks can actually soak up more noise. Their inneficiency can actually be a benefit with crappy amplification

Of course none of these are problems for smarter user. 

Now that Lycan pointed that passive can do the same things but more inflexibly and inaccurately can anyone tell me how this passive would look like:
*20 band parametric
*48db slopes
*+-15db adjustment in gain for each of the 4 speaker outputs
*impedance compensation
*linear phase filters
*subsonic filter

I've used something like this active before. 
My guess is I would lose all trunk space. It would soak up about half the power. It would cost more than the car. It would still work poorly when I see my parents in Palm Springs (120 degree whether). It would have a short lifespan as the car is parked near the beach and there is lots of salt corrosion and humidity. The parameters would vary when fed ~ 1.5KW as I had on tap.


----------

