# Why are we even discussing passive setups in 2010?



## audiogodz1 (Jan 5, 2010)

I pose this question because I'm just as amazed to see people still running chokes and coils in 2010 as I am to see them running a single set of RCA's to the back and splitting them to 2 amps.

My first electronic crossover was a Coustic XM-3 back in the early-mid 90's and I threw my bass coils out the window into the trash that night and have never ran a set of passive crossovers again. I eventually went to AudioControl processing, but the XM-3 was the low buck electronic crossover that could be hooked to a 4 channel mid amp and a 2 channel sub amp in the early 90's and be fully active for a few hundred bucks. Sony and Alpine were both putting out some nice head units with front, rear, sub outputs around this time as well allowing you to be 100% active in the early 90's. 

As someone who has been running car audio since 1991 it just stumps me to to see people still talking about "going active". I guess I figured everyone was with technology making it so easy for people to do. I mean it seems as if you'd actually have to make an effort to go PASSIVE with the way things are today. 

Am I reading this wrong?


----------



## rommelrommel (Apr 11, 2007)

Costs more, takes up more space, more intimidating, lots of reasons tbh. 

Hell, I'm planning on a logic7 setup, that would be 12 channels minimum of amplification to go purely active.


----------



## jstrat (Jan 5, 2010)

is there a better sounding woofer than a focal 33 wx, and does anyone no about mounting tweeters off axis ?


----------



## ncv6coupe (Oct 25, 2009)

jstrat said:


> is there a better sounding woofer than a focal 33 wx, and does anyone no about mounting tweeters off axis ?


lol:laugh::laugh:


----------



## audiogodz1 (Jan 5, 2010)

rommelrommel said:


> Costs more, takes up more space, more intimidating, lots of reasons tbh.


These all seem like negatives.......


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

rommelrommel said:


> Costs more, takes up more space, more intimidating, lots of reasons tbh.
> 
> Hell, I'm planning on a logic7 setup, that would be 12 channels minimum of amplification to go purely active.


It costs less if not the same than designing a killer passive network from scratch, killer passive networks are also not small by any means.

As for intimidation... your slip is showing


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

audiogodz1 said:


> I pose this question because I'm just as amazed to see people still running chokes and coils in 2010 as I am to see them running a single set of RCA's to the back and splitting them to 2 amps.
> 
> My first electronic crossover was a Coustic XM-3 back in the early-mid 90's and I threw my bass coils out the window into the trash that night and have never ran a set of passive crossovers again. I eventually went to AudioControl processing, but the XM-3 was the low buck electronic crossover that could be hooked to a 4 channel mid amp and a 2 channel sub amp in the early 90's and be fully active for a few hundred bucks. Sony and Alpine were both putting out some nice head units with front, rear, sub outputs around this time as well allowing you to be 100% active in the early 90's.
> 
> ...


I've been running Hondas for close to a decade, and electronic-ANYTHING screws up my noise floor. I've even considered using battery powered amplifiers to get the noise floor down.

No way in hell I'm putting an active crossover in the mix, even though I own a few. Just too noisy.

I love reading those old Autosound2000 tech briefs, and I'm glad I don't have to deal with the noise problems that they did.

The only thing that would get me to cross over to the dark side is digital delay, which *would* be nice. Doing that in a passive network is just way too much work.

In a nutshell, I can't think of a good reason to "go active", unless you like noise, or you're in a hurry. (Active IS a lot less work than making passive networks.)


----------



## audiogodz1 (Jan 5, 2010)

Well my experience is backwards so I don't have that perspective on the noise floor. My Lexus does great as did my CLK430 before it.


----------



## kyheng (Jan 31, 2007)

Using good quality passives will add more taste to your system. But to design it is a pain to do so. Just got too many varibles inside a car.


----------



## benny (Apr 7, 2008)

Noise? What noise? Are your ears _that_ good? Also, I think almost all of us run battery-powered amplifiers. I quit running mains powered and steam-driven amps in my car years ago


----------



## tanakasan (Sep 8, 2007)

I agree with the OP.

Slightly more work to install but a lot more flexibility...especially if you like to try different drivers!

Robert


----------



## clbolt (Jan 9, 2008)

Well, let's look at this from another angle...

Tru Technology amps are clearly superior to every other brand, so why are we even discussing using anything else in 2010? (insert your favorite brand)

Lossless music files played through an iPod are clearly superior to CDs, so why are we even building CD head units in 2010?

You're only looking at the subject from your own experience, because you want everyone to think the way you do. I don't drive a Lexus or a Mercedes-Benz, does that mean I'm incorrect?


----------



## couped (Apr 25, 2008)

I wish there were more choices for active crossovers today. Do a search for people asking which one to use and you will still get recommendations for old equipment like the xm-3, frx-456, etc.. Ever since they started putting so much processing in head units, and crossovers in amps, the market for a good external crossover has crashed. I'm currently trying to hunt down a 90s model JBL gtx-47 as I prefer an external unit with actual knobs on it. My head unit is a computer that doesn't have the processing power or a sound card capable of splitting frequencies, and the crossovers on most amps are not configurable enough to do a three way front. Heck, it is hard to even find a new external crossover that has a bandpass output on it.


----------



## Billk1002 (Aug 23, 2009)

From the perspective of a non electronics gura with an everyday driver.
I love my DSP!! I have had one for about a year and a half now, and its hard to remember life without one.
I'm having way to much fun swapping used DIY drivers to ever go back.


----------



## kapone (Sep 22, 2009)

couped said:


> I wish there were more choices for active crossovers today. Do a search for people asking which one to use and you will still get recommendations for old equipment like the xm-3, frx-456, etc.. Ever since they started putting so much processing in head units, and crossovers in amps, the market for a good external crossover has crashed. I'm currently trying to hunt down a 90s model JBL gtx-47 as I prefer an external unit with actual knobs on it. My head unit is a computer that doesn't have the processing power or a sound card capable of splitting frequencies, and the crossovers on most amps are not configurable enough to do a three way front. Heck, it is hard to even find a new external crossover that has a bandpass output on it.


Get a new computer and something like a Delta 1010 (10 in 10 out... )...might be cheaper than hunting down old school stuff, and infitely more flexible.


----------



## rommelrommel (Apr 11, 2007)

chad said:


> It costs less if not the same than designing a killer passive network from scratch, killer passive networks are also not small by any means.
> 
> As for intimidation... your slip is showing


Oh seriously, who is building passives anymore? 99% of people just want to put some comps in the door and maybe run them with a little amp. 90% of the people on here thinking of going active are going to have to buy at least another amp, if not a hu upgrade or a external xover. 9% about are biamped or bridged and have the xover ability already. 1% if that have built passives and are thinking about active. 

I went active 4 years ago and don't plan to go back, but it's a niche that most people don't fit into.


----------



## DarkScorpion (Nov 22, 2009)

Going full blown active can be very expensive. Also, most electronic crossovers require an external power source - another wire that needs to be run which is a big turn off to people who just want to run a set of components off their head units (which is a lot of people). Also, as said earlier, a well designed passive crossover can sound very, VERY good. Most home systems use passive crossovers inside the speaker cabinet, from cheap HTIB speakers to top of the line line arrays...


----------



## audiogodz1 (Jan 5, 2010)

DarkScorpion said:


> Going full blown active can be very expensive. Also, most electronic crossovers require an external power source - another wire that needs to be run which is a big turn off to people who just want to run a set of components off their head units (which is a lot of people). Also, as said earlier, a well designed passive crossover can sound very, VERY good. Most home systems use passive crossovers inside the speaker cabinet, from cheap HTIB speakers to top of the line line arrays...


OK you're not going to sit here and tell me that running a power wire is a "huge turn off" to choosing what equipment you run, Whaaaaa?. 

......and expensive? compared to what? What is "expensive" about active?


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

DarkScorpion said:


> Going full blown active can be very expensive. Also, most electronic crossovers require an external power source - another wire that needs to be run which is a big turn off to people who just want to run a set of components off their head units (which is a lot of people).


Well, not a lot of people here, a very small percentage of active members run deck power AND if you run deck power you ain't going active anyway.



DarkScorpion said:


> Also, as said earlier, a well designed passive crossover can sound very, VERY good. Most home systems use passive crossovers inside the speaker cabinet, from cheap HTIB speakers to top of the line line arrays...


The designers of home systems know what enclosures the drivers will be in, they also know that the drivers will very likely be pointed at your noggin, a car passive has to take into account that the owner may place the tweets on axis, they may bounce them off a wind-shield or they may blow them into their ankles. 

How can the crossover that is a "one size fit's all" compensate for this variance? It can't.


----------



## placenta (Feb 2, 2008)

clbolt said:


> Tru Technology amps are clearly superior to every other brand, so why are we even discussing using anything else in 2010?


that is correct.


----------



## DarkScorpion (Nov 22, 2009)

audiogodz1 said:


> OK you're not going to sit here and tell me that running a power wire is a "huge turn off" to choosing what equipment you run, Whaaaaa?.
> 
> ......and expensive? compared to what? What is "expensive" about active?



I'm referring to the general population, not us. Lmao, I'm well aware that almost everyone on this site will want to run active, hell even I want to run active. But like I was saying, MOST people overall will not see the point in spending more money on an active set up when their "kit" comes with everything they need. 




chad said:


> Well, not a lot of people here, a very small percentage of active members run deck power AND if you run deck power you ain't going active anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I understand that fact too, I'm just referring to active vs passive in general, not specifically in cars. I was thinking that the OP was asking why passive crossovers were being used _at all_ at this day and age, not just for vehicles.


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

DarkScorpion said:


> I'm referring to the general population, not us. Lmao, I'm well aware that almost everyone on this site will want to run active, hell even I want to run active. But like I was saying, MOST people overall will not see the point in spending more money on an active set up when their "kit" comes with everything they need.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The OP either mentions or infers car audio several times. I would only use Active in a car and only Passives in the home.


----------



## Banegio (Nov 28, 2009)

why do people drive auto


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

Banegio said:


> why do people drive auto


So they can talk on the phone, text, put on makeup, read, eat, and for us car audio guys...tune on the fly....lol


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

Niebur3 said:


> I would only use Active in a car and only Passives in the home.


Do you own a subwoofer for home?


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

chad said:


> Do you own a subwoofer for home?


Why, yes I do....why do you ask?


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

passive or actively crossed over?


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

chad said:


> passive or actively crossed over?


Ok...Ok, my home setup is not in the league of what I would consider a sq setup. In a truly high end sq setup in the home, I would think most would use passives. If I built my home system from scratch like my car is, then I would do the passive thing. 

With my sub I think I have 2 options for crossover point, I guess that is technically active. You got me....lol :laugh:


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

I was teasing, even the bass sections on our Avant Garde Duo's at woork are actively crossed over, the two top horns are big passive networks.


----------



## King Nothing (Oct 10, 2005)

Niebur3 said:


> So they can talk on the phone, text, put on makeup, read, eat, and for us car audio guys...tune on the fly....lol


Lovin your avatar. got a link to a fullsize pic LOL


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

King Nothing said:


> Lovin your avatar. got a link to a fullsize pic LOL


And why would I give you a pic of my wife....


----------



## justinmreina (Nov 3, 2009)

Patrick, what increase in noise did you notice from your active vs passive experience? Are you referring to noise or interference from the actives? Are we talking a noise floor at 5dB vs. 6dB or something more like 5dB vs, say 25dB? I have never seen comparisons between the active/passive, and you seem like the guy for the task!

Thanks,
Justin Reina


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

Patrick Bateman said:


> No way in hell I'm putting an active crossover in the mix, even though I own a few. Just too noisy.


Then buy amps with crossovers in them. That's what I did for years. No noise issues and you save money and hassle.

Edit: Or run passive crossovers in the preamp section.


----------



## ncv6coupe (Oct 25, 2009)

MarkZ said:


> Then buy amps with crossovers in them. No noise issues and you save money and hassle.


+1
my practice here too mark.


----------



## King Nothing (Oct 10, 2005)

Niebur3 said:


> And why would I give you a pic of my wife....


Didnt know it was your wife. figured it was something you stumbled across on the web LOL. Lucky guy


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

King Nothing said:


> Didnt know it was your wife. figured it was something you stumbled across on the web LOL. Lucky guy


J/K...not my wife, found it searching Nebraska under google. However, my wife could pose in that and probably look similar


----------



## audiogodz1 (Jan 5, 2010)

Niebur3 said:


> J/K...not my wife, found it searching Nebraska under google. However, my wife could pose in that and probably look similar


Well there's only one thing to do........ 

(show it to her and compliment her azz, maybe she'll make a steak)


----------



## gymrat2005 (Oct 4, 2009)

Funny I was just talking to a friend about this the other night, and I also made a post on it a few days ago. I decided on using an active setup to tune everything how I want it. Once that's done, I want to build some quality passives for the front stage using those tuning parameters. Use some Mundorf 1-2% caps, and some litz wound coils. I think once the tuning is done in the vehicle, it's very feasible to make some killer passives. Not feasible however to just keep using trial and error to get a good tune with passives, or use generic passives. Quite a few European system designers still use passive setups and win sq competitions. (not that I am ever going to compete).

So why I agree active is a zillion times easier, A good passive is still very doable, and even desirable by some.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

gymrat2005 said:


> Funny I was just talking to a friend about this the other night, and I also made a post on it a few days ago. I decided on using an active setup to tune everything how I want it. Once that's done, I want to build some quality passives for the front stage using those tuning parameters. Use some Mundorf 1-2% caps, and some litz wound coils. I think once the tuning is done in the vehicle, it's very feasible to make some killer passives. Not feasible however to just keep using trial and error to get a good tune with passives, or use generic passives. Quite a few European system designers still use passive setups and win sq competitions. (not that I am ever going to compete).
> 
> So why I agree active is a zillion times easier, A good passive is still very doable, and even desirable by some.


It's definitely doable, but I don't see why it's desirable. You can always mimic a passive crossover with an active one, AND get the additional benefits of no insertion loss, tweeter protection during clipping, no hysteresis, and stability in the parameters. The last one is pretty important. As your speaker heats up, its impedance changes. If the impedance changes, the crossover point and Q changes. This changes your perfect passive filter into a not-so-perfect filter...


----------



## gymrat2005 (Oct 4, 2009)

shoot, a couple of these babies with some passive crossovers!


----------



## Ram4ever (Oct 21, 2009)

LOL.... that's what we need - big manly vacuum tube car audio amps! That would solve all our automotive heating issues in the winter around here! ;0)

I could turn on the amps 5 minutes before going out to the car and starting the engine...

Back to the OP's question, I agree with his basic idea. I'm especially fond of the ability of active systems to be altered if need be without resorting to modifying circuit board components. What fun is tuning when it's made difficult! I want to see/hear what the other possibilities are. And the ability of higher order crossovers like 24 dB/octave actives to minimize the nasty phase distortion around the crossover notch region is important. No amount of tweeking or high quality passive parts will get rid of that on a passive crossover.

That being said, minimizing the number of wire connections and the amount of DIN space consumed can still be big reasons to go passive...


----------



## Kamyk (Apr 27, 2009)

MarkZ said:


> Or run passive crossovers in the preamp section.


I've been doing some research on these things for a while and found v.little info.
To my knowledge passive preamp filters are mostly used in 1st order version which might be not enough in most cases. Maybe You could shed some light on this?


----------



## k-ink (Dec 20, 2009)

Not everyone wants a car weighed down with tons of equipment that ruins the handling. Neither do they want to spend the rest of time tweaking a systems settings.


----------



## jel847 (Nov 8, 2007)

its funny that this topic has come up. I have always been using passives with my speakers. i did try a two way active front stage in my truck, all analog processors but space was a premium and i have since sold the truck.
my new ride has passive components in the doors and a second set of tweeters up in the dash. ( sub in the trunk) .
had and tried a dcx-730 on my last system but am not the tinker tolerent type and i scrapped it.
but.... now that i have the software to control it and can look at it right there on the laptop it just seems soo easy to tune. its basically the same as the zapco dsp.
crossover is super flexible.
i am installing it in my gto as soon as the weather here gets a little nicer and going full active front stage.


----------



## zpaguy (Jan 17, 2010)

Patrick Bateman said:


> I've been running Hondas for close to a decade, and electronic-ANYTHING screws up my noise floor. I've even considered using battery powered amplifiers to get the noise floor down.
> 
> No way in hell I'm putting an active crossover in the mix, even though I own a few. Just too noisy.
> 
> ...


Noisy? Where do you get your info? Noise has NOTHING to do with actively crossing your system. And by the way, I am on my fifth Honda with no noise issues EVER. Not sure what the problem is on your end, but no noise issues here!


----------



## zpaguy (Jan 17, 2010)

kyheng said:


> Using good quality passives will add more taste to your system. But to design it is a pain to do so. Just got too many varibles inside a car.


Taste? Just what does that mean? Have you ever run active? Active adds "taste" IMHO...


----------



## zpaguy (Jan 17, 2010)

clbolt said:


> Well, let's look at this from another angle...
> 
> Tru Technology amps are clearly superior to every other brand, so why are we even discussing using anything else in 2010? (insert your favorite brand)
> 
> ...


What a piss poor analogy. You are talking about equipment, what does that have to do with anything?? "Lossless" files dont exist, believe me. They can say they sound the same as a CD, but I know for a fact that that is incorrect. 

Also active vs passive is NOT like comparing amp models. Active dominates passive, fact. If a person doesnt have the skill and knowledge to properly setup and use an active system, then by all means a passive setup is for you.


----------



## zpaguy (Jan 17, 2010)

A post I made a week or two ago in another thread pretty much says it all:

"Hmmmm, well, IMHO one has to believe a PROPERLY designed and built passive crossover can PROBABLY do as good a job as going active, however there are four disadvantages (in my mind) by going passive over active:

A. When active, there are no phase issues like when using a passive network. 
B. Active allows your amp to only amplify the frequencys in use by that driver, nothing is wasted as heat like you would have with a "choked" passive system. 
C. Active is much, much more tuneable by an experienced user.
D. Unless you have your tweets right next to your mids, how are you going to time delay your tweeters seperately from your mids with a passive system? Cant do it.

With my active system, I constantly tweak based on the recording. Many older recordings benefit from a db or two boost on the tweets vs a more modern and dynamic recording. I mess with my tweeter settings constantly depending on the music and would sure hate to be limited in this way. On occassion I also have to take down my mids one notch if the recording has tons of processed bass, cant do that with a passive system (at least not sitting in the drivers seat).

I also firmly believe active is better because it allows you to tune for your cars environment. When doing my initial setup in my car I played with crossover slopes and points, finding the sweet spot for my particular vehicle and driver locations. How you going to do that with a passive system?

Now I must say, if a person is a newb and hasnt developed their ear nor have the knowledge to use the active setup, then passive is really the way to go. An inexperienced user has a much higher likelyhood of screwing things up with an active system. Just my two cents worth... "


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

justinmreina said:


> Patrick, what increase in noise did you notice from your active vs passive experience? Are you referring to noise or interference from the actives? Are we talking a noise floor at 5dB vs. 6dB or something more like 5dB vs, say 25dB? I have never seen comparisons between the active/passive, and you seem like the guy for the task!
> 
> Thanks,
> Justin Reina


Horn guys like me are a bit of a 'special case.'

For instance, let's say you're running a dome tweeter with an efficiency of 87dB, and I'm running a compression driver with an efficiency of 107dB. Due to the extra efficiency, I can get 20dB louder, everything else being equal.

BUT

It also means that my noise floor will be 20dB louder too. So every last buzz, pop and hum in the system is exacerbated. And 20dB louder is a LOT; that's like going from 100 watts of amplification to ten THOUSAND watts of amplification. Imagine increasing the noise in your system by that much   

Now the obvious answer would be to turn down the volume knob, or the gains on the amp. But in my experience noise tends to exist at a fixed volume. So those two solutions only make the noise louder relative to the music. Padding down the compression driver with an L-Pad *does* work, because it lowers it's efficiency. But that opens up a whole 'nother set of problems.

The best solution by far is to eliminate the buzzing component, and in my cars, it's always been the EQs and the electronic crossovers.

So, yeah, that's one of the reasons Richard Clark had to go all gonzo with the noise gates and stuff. Horns are revealing in more ways than one.


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

I agree Patrick, I was going to mention this. I also REALLY need to compile what I have done in my honda to quiet it down electrically. Aside from the obvious "pay attention to where you run wiring" and "use proper interconnection architecture."

I have added filtering to some known noisy devices to snub-off RF issues and electrical hash, it helped tremendously.

Because see, us RF guys are different that you horn guys because our receivers are sensitive to anything and everything


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

zpaguy said:


> A post I made a week or two ago in another thread pretty much says it all:
> 
> "Hmmmm, well, IMHO one has to believe a PROPERLY designed and built passive crossover can PROBABLY do as good a job as going active, however there are four disadvantages (in my mind) by going passive over active:
> 
> ...




The post above is a textbook example of why you shouldn't trust anything that's said on an internet forum, by anybody, including me. Two of the four claims are outright wrong, and the other two are arguable.

Again, I'm not bashing the poster, I'm bashing everyone on the internet who claims to be an authority, myself included 

_"Don't believe half of what you see, and none of what you hear. (Lou Reed)"_


----------



## lycan (Dec 20, 2009)

Patrick Bateman said:


> The post above is a textbook example of why you shouldn't trust anything that's said on an internet forum, by anybody, including me. Two of the four claims are outright wrong, and the other two are arguable.
> 
> Again, I'm not bashing the poster, I'm bashing everyone on the internet who claims to be an authority, myself included
> 
> _"Don't believe half of what you see, and none of what you hear. (Lou Reed)"_


Well said Patrick.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

Kamyk said:


> I've been doing some research on these things for a while and found v.little info.
> To my knowledge passive preamp filters are mostly used in 1st order version which might be not enough in most cases. Maybe You could shed some light on this?


Yeah, it's usually first order because then you don't have to introduce inductors. Series capacitors or parallel capacitors (after a resistor) will act as fine HPF or LPF, respectively.

But you can make it second order and still passive by adding an inductor.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

zpaguy said:


> "Lossless" files dont exist, believe me. They can say they sound the same as a CD, but I know for a fact that that is incorrect.


So a wav or an iso isn't lossless?


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

MarkZ said:


> So a wav or an iso isn't lossless?


In theory CD is not loss-less to the original signal.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

Patrick Bateman said:


> The post above is a textbook example of why you shouldn't trust anything that's said on an internet forum, by anybody, including me. Two of the four claims are outright wrong, and the other two are arguable.
> 
> Again, I'm not bashing the poster, I'm bashing everyone on the internet who claims to be an authority, myself included
> 
> _"Don't believe half of what you see, and none of what you hear. (Lou Reed)"_


Patrick, I only saw one of the points was wrong (the first one). What's the other one?


----------



## k-ink (Dec 20, 2009)

zpaguy said:


> A. When active, there are no phase issues like when using a passive network.
> B. Active allows your amp to only amplify the frequencys in use by that driver, nothing is wasted as heat like you would have with a "choked" passive system.
> C. Active is much, much more tuneable by an experienced user.
> D. Unless you have your tweets right next to your mids, how are you going to time delay your tweeters seperately from your mids with a passive system? Cant do it.



A. My passive x-over is designed without phase issues
B. My passive can adjust the volume of each driver independently 
C. There is only one right setting. Why have more?
D. My tweeters are right next to my mids


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

zpaguy said:


> What a piss poor analogy. You are talking about equipment, what does that have to do with anything?? "Lossless" files dont exist, believe me. They can say they sound the same as a CD, but *I know for a fact that that is incorrect.*


????


----------



## lycan (Dec 20, 2009)

1. Active filters introduce the SAME phase shift as passive filters. 45 degrees, per-pole, at crossover, asymptotically approaching 90 degrees at frequency extremes. By the way, digital filters introduce the SAME phase shift as passive filters too (except for FIR, which can be designed for perfectly linear phase). You don't avoid "phase issues" by going active, or by going digital.

2. Pure delay most definitely IS possible with passive networks (think all-pass, readily implemented by passive ladder or lattice structures), although the delay tends to be limited to finite bandwidths.


----------



## justinmreina (Nov 3, 2009)

*@zpaguy:*

The perhaps reasonable experience and knowledge you offer is completely negated by your brash tone. IMHO (<-Kind of ironic that you use the _H_ in your posts...) tone it down a bit and stay to the facts, and people like me looking for information can actually use the information you post. That aside, your posts were interesting .​
*@lycan:* 
Could you post a link to a passive delay circuit? I have been trying to find one online to no avail for awhile now.​Also, it seems all the passive proponents in this thread are ignoring T/A and steeper filters. Any rationalization then from the passive guys?



Thanks,
Justin Reina


----------



## Fast1one (Apr 6, 2007)

Uhhh....


zpaguy said:


> A post I made a week or two ago in another thread pretty much says it all:
> 
> "Hmmmm, well, IMHO one has to believe a PROPERLY designed and built passive crossover can PROBABLY do as good a job as going active, however there are four disadvantages (in my mind) by going passive over active:
> 
> ...


I don't advocate using passives, if that's what you think. I actually prefer active. Why? In my situation, the pros outway the cons. There are some benefits to going passive, some of which were outlined in this thread. The big one mentioned was the noise floor. People with noisy cars benefit by removing as many components from the signal chain as possible. I am personally still fighting with this issue. 

There was one big negative when going passive, which I don't think was mentioned here:

*Heat*

The effects of power compression raise the impedance of the driver which, if severe enough, will cause the crossover points to shift as the temperature rises. This will not only cause peaks or valleys in the response, but the change in relative phase between the drivers can make the situation more severe. Crossovers are designed with the drivers impedance AT THAT FREQUENCY. This is why impedance graphs are essential for designing a passive setup. Using drivers with large coils and good cooling will combat this issue. Unfortunately, this usually entails spending big money on quality pro drivers that can swallow a lot of power. This is precisely why I don't go passive, I don't have the money for it


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

justinmreina said:


> *@lycan:*
> Could you post a link to a passive delay circuit? I have been trying to find one online to no avail for awhile now.​Also, it seems all the passive proponents in this thread are ignoring T/A and steeper filters. Any rationalization then from the passive guys?
> 
> 
> ...


Google "All Pass Filter"


----------



## justinmreina (Nov 3, 2009)

chad said:


> Google "All Pass Filter"


Gawsh... Please don't tell anyone I asked this. On a side note, you would think after 3+ years of EE coursework they would have shown us this friggin topic. Or maybe I should've taken those DSP courses...

Thanks,
Justin


----------



## lycan (Dec 20, 2009)

chad is right : google "all-pass" filter. Maybe check a wiki on "lattice phase equalizer".

For a passive time delay (with no amplitude impact), you need an all-pass filter. Right-half plane zeros that are mirror-images of left-half plane poles (in transform-speak). Can be realized readily as a cascade of first-order, or a cascade of second-order, filter sections (quite nicely, in fact, as constant-impedance lattice networks ... probably gotta Zobel the driver for flatter impedance).

Big topic, maybe another thread.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

Fast1one said:


> I am assuming that the reason that you are constantly adjusting for the recording is because you are flying blind by not using measuring equipment or lack an EQ powerful enough to tune the system well. 31 band EQs are old technology. You need at the very least several independent parametric equalizers, preferably adjustable every 1/6th of an octave instead of the traditional 1/3rd. This is why Andy from JBL has been spending so much time with the MS-8. His team has been developing complex algorithms that fixed Q equalizers and even parametric equalizers can't accomplish.


I don't think it's quite that simple. Songs are recorded differently. Now, I don't tune the whole damned thing when I load up different albums, but I do adjust the volume sliders for the sub/midbass/midrange/tweeter. Some albums require as much as a 6dB difference in position, especially the sub!



> I don't advocate using passives, if that's what you think. I actually prefer active. Why? In my situation, the pros outway the cons. There are some benefits to going passive, some of which were outlined in this thread. The big one mentioned was the noise floor. People with noisy cars benefit by removing as many components from the signal chain as possible. I am personally still fighting with this issue.


This is only valid for those using outboard crossovers. Amplifier crossovers won't add any more noise.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

justinmreina said:


> Gawsh... Please don't tell anyone I asked this. On a side note, you would think after 3+ years of EE coursework they would have shown us this friggin topic. Or maybe I should've taken those DSP courses...
> 
> Thanks,
> Justin


Haha EE coursework means learning how to write matlab code.


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

zpaguy said:


> What a piss poor analogy. You are talking about equipment, what does that have to do with anything?? "Lossless" files dont exist, believe me. They can say they sound the same as a CD, but I know for a fact that that is incorrect.


I have a CD recorded by a sound engineer here locally that says otherwise. He took the original file, and several different compression types (including lossless) and inverted phase and place over the original. All that is left is what you are missing from the original recording. Every compression types except lossless has information left that you can hear. The lossless is silent, therefore any difference is inaudible. 

Disclaimer.....I will state, I am not an expert on this and don't claim to be.


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

MarkZ said:


> This is only valid for those using outboard crossovers. Amplifier crossovers won't add any more noise.


My only problem with using the amplifier's built in crossovers is it always seems to be a dial and you are guessing on the actual frequency. I'll stick with my "noise" that Patrick talks about and keep my P9.


----------



## UNBROKEN (Sep 25, 2009)

I've been trying to learn enough to feel comfortable trying an active system. Does the quality of the crossover have any impact on whether I should stay passive or not ?
I have a lot more reading to do...and learning before I'd even try active...but I'd like to think my passive crossover is pretty good to start with. If it is...is it really worth it to go to all the hassle of adding amps to go active ?

Here's what I'm running up front...bi-amped now. Head unit is a DRZ9255....so I've been slowly amassing the parts to go active anyway.


----------



## Dryseals (Sep 7, 2008)

Interesting discussion, lots of misinformation floating around. All I'll say is that a spring can be a reverb. So anyone that thinks the only way "it" can be done is with modern gear is still in the infant stages of audio........


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

MarkZ said:


> Patrick, I only saw one of the points was wrong (the first one). What's the other one?


Werewolf pointed out the two mistakes 

You can definitely do delay passively, it's just requires lots and lots of parts. Way more trouble than it's worth. Here's a program to calculate them:







Bullock and White's Home Page


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

Patrick Bateman said:


> Werewolf pointed out the two mistakes
> 
> You can definitely do delay passively, it's just requires lots and lots of parts. Way more trouble than it's worth. Here's a program to calculate them:


Right. I hadn't really considered the delay thing to be "wrong". Digital delay has a number of advantages over analog delay, and preamp delay has even more advantages. So, in that sense, I think the guy was correct.


----------



## justinmreina (Nov 3, 2009)

Did I just see a DOS application posted when comparing technology that you may or may not refer to as 'state of the art in 2010'?

How old are you people! :laugh::laugh:

-Justin


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

Dryseals said:


> Interesting discussion, lots of misinformation floating around. All I'll say is that a spring can be a reverb.


so can a plate


----------



## zpaguy (Jan 17, 2010)

k-ink said:


> A. My passive x-over is designed without phase issues
> B. My passive can adjust the volume of each driver independently
> C. There is only one right setting. Why have more?
> D. My tweeters are right next to my mids


A. You designed your x-over for that vehicle w/ delay? Or are you running dedicated channels to each driver and crossing passively? That would be odd.
B. You can adjust the volume of your drivers independently FROM THE DRIVERS SEAT, GOING DOWN THE ROAD? If so, sweet setup, I guess.
C. One right setting? What magic world do you live in? With a perfect recording, sure. But how bout when you want to fire up that old Blue Oyster Cult cd that sounds like it was recorded in a soup can, watcha gonna do then? I know I kick my tweeters up a db or two when playing many sub-par recordings. One right setting? I think not.
D. Nice for you, however, the real world dictates not all installs can set up mids/tweets as a single point source and individual delay can make the diff between having detail, attack and a wide/deep stage or having a vague, odd sounding sound stage.

On another note, thanks for the info guys. I was not aware active crossovers had the same phasing issues as passive.


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

justinmreina said:


> Did I just see a DOS application posted when comparing technology that you may or may not refer to as 'state of the art in 2010'?
> 
> How old are you people! :laugh::laugh:
> 
> -Justin


You think I could afford to waste all this time and money if I was in my 20s? 

(I'm 38.)


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

WTF is wrong with DOS apps?


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

chad said:


> WTF is wrong with DOS apps?


Square mouse cursors.


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

herts der eyez.


----------



## justinmreina (Nov 3, 2009)

Oops I think I started a dangerous tangent. Sorry(kind of) to offend all you old-schoolers!

Back on track- Someone had mentioned in Europe they often tune their system up with an active configuration, then replace it with a replica passive configuration afterwards. Does anyone have any examples of this, seems cool!

-Justin

*DOS isn't wrong. Its just not 'right' anymore


----------



## Fast1one (Apr 6, 2007)

MarkZ said:


> I don't think it's quite that simple. Songs are recorded differently. Now, I don't tune the whole damned thing when I load up different albums, but I do adjust the volume sliders for the sub/midbass/midrange/tweeter. Some albums require as much as a 6dB difference in position, especially the sub!
> 
> I'm a purist. If the producer was lazy enough or untalented to produce at least a mediocre recording, then I won't listen to the music, pure and simple. For me, realism plays a huge part in my music selection. Content is still a bigger role, but I won't listen to garbage. That being said, I do adjust the subwoofer from time to time. Its only natural to want to shake things up every once in a while
> 
> ...


I will admit, not every recording was done particularly well. But I think a good majority of them were recorded well enough to be supported on a daily basis. 

*Stop touching that gain knob! Stop playing with that crossover! Tune to your ideal response curve and enjoy the music!!!*


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

Fast1one said:


> I'm a purist. If the producer was lazy enough or untalented to produce at least a mediocre recording, then I won't listen to the music, pure and simple. For me, realism plays a huge part in my music selection. Content is still a bigger role, but I won't listen to garbage. That being said, I do adjust the subwoofer from time to time. Its only natural to want to shake things up every once in a while


Really? Some of my favorite music is recorded like crap.  I can't just stop liking songs because the engineer was asleep at the wheel (or drunk ). My brain don't work that way. 

Then there are live albums that I have that are recorded very differently from the studio stuff. Not "wrong", per se. Just different.



> I haven't seen many amplifiers sophisticated enough to do an active setup properly. Zapco DC Refs and Kenwood X4R come close. Maybe a handful others, but not many. ARCs are nice enough to have a choice between 12db and 24db slopes, but what if you need something in between?


The ESX amps I'm using now can do a full active system. And the a/d/s/ amps I used in my last install could too (presently sitting on my floor ready to go in the classifieds). And I used to have an Orion that could be bandpassed. They're definitely out there. You just gotta hunt a little.


----------



## lycan (Dec 20, 2009)

Patrick Bateman said:


> Werewolf pointed out the two mistakes
> 
> You can definitely do delay passively, it's just requires lots and lots of parts. Way more trouble than it's worth. Here's a program to calculate them:
> 
> ...


That's a second-order all-pass section, constructed as a constant-impedance lattice  They can easily be cascaded, by the way, providing that they are terminated in what we'll call their "characteristic impedance". Very nifty little networks.

But yes ... cumbersome, and subject to component variances and temp drift.


----------



## justinmreina (Nov 3, 2009)

and VERY cumbersome if designed in DOS!

Hmm I might have to play with this delay circuit. For me at least, as you bring me out of my ignorance this definitely changes my perspective on passive configurations.

-Justin


----------



## Fast1one (Apr 6, 2007)

MarkZ said:


> Really? Some of my favorite music is recorded like crap.  I can't just stop liking songs because the engineer was asleep at the wheel (or drunk ). My brain don't work that way.
> 
> Then there are live albums that I have that are recorded very differently from the studio stuff. Not "wrong", per se. Just different.
> I think I came out a little brash. I can tolerate quite a bit until I turn it off. The point is something has to be REALLY bad for me to reach for a gain control. If it is really that bad I can't stand changing the system just for those handful of songs. Bass is another story
> ...


Good discussion BTW. It's great to see other people's opinion on the subject matter. There is nothing particularly wrong with adjusting a gain of a tweeter, for example. But if you have to do it constantly than I feel like there is something fundamentally wrong with the installation, tuning or the driver itself.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

Fast1one said:


> Good discussion BTW. It's great to see other people's opinion on the subject matter. There is nothing particularly wrong with adjusting a gain of a tweeter, for example. But if you have to do it constantly than I feel like there is something fundamentally wrong with the installation, tuning or the driver itself.


Heh, I'll have to send you some mp3's. I don't adjust because there's something wrong with the install. I've got one group playing right now in the background while I'm typing this, where from album to album it's COMPLETELY different. And on one of their albums, it's not mastered properly and they put it together piecemeal. So from song to song it sometimes requires adjustment. Sometimes I'm just lazy (or busy driving!) and so I don't adjust it. But other times it's obnoxious.

But like I said, 90% of the time it's the sub or midbass level control only.


----------



## Dryseals (Sep 7, 2008)

chad said:


> so can a plate


And some of the best recording's with reverb were made in old farm silos. The point being, that what ever folks are trying now was accomplished before, it wasn't as easy as it is now, but it could be done.

The original post was over active vs passive and many folks brought out some good info while some regurgitated I-net data. Even in the old tube days we had adjustable delays and crossovers, just the equipment was bigger and so much hotter.

None of this is really new data, just the equipment was more expensive. I wish I could get back what I paid for all my test gear back then and have it to spend now. A good was scope wasn't cheap.


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

Dryseals said:


> And some of the best recording's with reverb were made in old farm silos.


We have recently taken to an old barn......

Allerton Music Barn / School of Music / University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign


----------



## Hernan (Jul 9, 2006)

I really don't know if passives sound better than active XOs.
Being at a DIY forum, a think that a full active setup is a more simpler aproach to experiment and learn. Perhaps not the ultimate in SQ but a tailored passive is not a simple thing and T/a is a must in most installs...


----------



## betterbelizeit (Oct 4, 2009)

It's a battle that ain't gonna have any winners. It's like trying to convince someone who loves football that hockey is a better sport...it's not ging to happen. By the way, hockey is a better sport.


----------



## zpaguy (Jan 17, 2010)

Hernan said:


> I really don't know if passives sound better than active XOs.
> Being at a DIY forum, a think that a full active setup is a more simpler aproach to experiment and learn. Perhaps not the ultimate in SQ but a tailored passive is not a simple thing and T/a is a must in most installs...


Not the best in sound quality with active?? You are nuts! Active is the way to get ULTIMATE sound quality! Passive AT ITS BEST will do as good a job as an active setup. Fact.


----------



## sam3535 (Jan 21, 2007)

zpaguy said:


> Not the best in sound quality with active?? You are nuts! Active is the way to get ULTIMATE sound quality! Passive AT ITS BEST will do as good a job as an active setup. Fact.


You don't seem to understand that this is your opinion and is subjective as essque is subjective and dependent on the individual. If someone can't afford the equipment to run active or can't physically fit the equipment for active, then passive is the ultimate in SQ in that particular instance. 

Your post "Passive AT ITS BEST will do as good a job as an active setup. Fact." negates "Not the best in sound quality with active?? You are nuts! Active is the way to get ULTIMATE sound quality!". If passive will do "as good a job" as active then how is active the ultimate?


----------



## DirtyDog (Jul 30, 2009)

Patrick Bateman said:


> *I've been running Hondas for close to a decade*, and electronic-ANYTHING screws up my noise floor. I've even considered using battery powered amplifiers to get the noise floor down.
> 
> No way in hell I'm putting an active crossover in the mix, even though I own a few. Just too noisy.
> 
> ...


That's your problem right there.:laugh:

I run passive to keep amp space down if that makes sense??


----------



## zpaguy (Jan 17, 2010)

sam3535 said:


> You don't seem to understand that this is your opinion and is subjective as essque is subjective and dependent on the individual. If someone can't afford the equipment to run active or can't physically fit the equipment for active, then passive is the ultimate in SQ in that particular instance.
> 
> Your post "Passive AT ITS BEST will do as good a job as an active setup. Fact." negates "Not the best in sound quality with active?? You are nuts! Active is the way to get ULTIMATE sound quality!". Is passive will do "as good a job" as active then how is active the ultimate?


Its not opinion, its reality. Name one, just ONE, advantage passive has over active? On the other hand, the advantages of active over passive are huge! Physical fit? Most HU and amps nowadays can completely support active along with the availiability of great, high power, small footprint amps so the space issue is out. I do understand the money issue as it does cost a little more to run active.

My final statement does not negate anything else I said. I mearly stated a properly designed and built passive can work SONICALLY as well as an active. The usual disadvantges are still there, lack of adjustability, heat build up etc. etc. Sorry I forgot to use the word SONICALLY in my prior statement.


----------



## sam3535 (Jan 21, 2007)

zpaguy said:


> Its not opinion, its reality. Name one, just ONE, advantage passive has over active? On the other hand, the advantages of active over passive are huge! Physical fit? Most HU and amps nowadays can completely support active along with the availiability of great, high power, small footprint amps so the space issue is out. I do understand the money issue as it does cost a little more to run active.
> 
> My final statement does not negate anything else I said. I mearly stated a properly designed and built passive can work SONICALLY as well as an active. The usual disadvantges are still there, lack of adjustability, heat build up etc. etc. Sorry I forgot to use the word SONICALLY in my prior statement.


I didn't say that passive has any advantage over active or vice versa. Read my post again. As to amps and head units that have the ability to actively cross; name ten manufacturers that currently produce head units and ten manufacturers that currently produce amps with this ability.

If a person has no problems with the "limits" of a passive set up, then how is active better?

Again, I'm not arguing either way and could care less if someone runs active or passive. The vast majority of members of this forum run passive. The vast majority of longer term and actively posting members here run active. And when I say actively posting I'm not talking about members asking about passive/active.


----------



## zpaguy (Jan 17, 2010)

sam3535 said:


> I didn't say that passive has any advantage over active or vice versa. Read my post again. As to amps and head units that have the ability to actively cross; name ten manufacturers that currently produce head units and ten manufacturers that currently produce amps with this ability.
> 
> Again, I'm not arguing either way and could care less if someone runs active or passive. The vast majority of members of this forum run passive. The vast majority of longer term and actively posting members here run active. And when I say actively posting I'm not talking about members asking about passive/active.


Yes, most run passive, the industry is set up that way, besides the average person would just wind up blowing up their tweeters with an active system. Thats why passive is so popular. 

And just because somebody is happy with their passive system certainly doesnt mean it is better.
Ten? Come on man, thats TOO easy in todays world.


----------



## sam3535 (Jan 21, 2007)

zpaguy said:


> Yes, most run passive, the industry is set up that way, besides the average person would just wind up blowing up their tweeters with an active system. Thats why passive is so popular.
> 
> Ten? Come on man, thats TOO easy in todays world.


Agreed on most people running passive. Let's see your lists of ten.


----------



## zpaguy (Jan 17, 2010)

sam3535 said:


> Agreed on most people running passive. Let's see your lists of ten.


amps im not going to even bother as there are so many options. not sure about 10 cd player builders, that many builders barely exist but here is what i get off the top of my head:

alpine
kenwood
sony
eclipse
jvc
clarion
pioneer

thats at least seven manufacturers that can support active systems and most of those have several models that do also. thats ALL the major cd unit manufacturers supporting the format.


----------



## sam3535 (Jan 21, 2007)

zpaguy said:


> amps im not going to even bother as there are so many options. not sure about 10 cd player builders, that many builders barely exist but here is what i get off the top of my head:
> 
> alpine
> kenwood
> ...


That's great. If active is the shizzle then why isn't every head unit capable of it? Cost, namely, but also the fact that the vast majority of people don't give a crap about it. I run active, but my wife's vehicle is passive. Why? She can't tell the difference and passive is perfectly acceptable to her ear. My point was that active vs. passive is dependent on the listener. Fact. End threadjack.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

sam3535 said:


> That's great. If active is the shizzle then why isn't every head unit capable of it? Cost, namely, but also the fact that the vast majority of people don't give a crap about it. I run active, but my wife's vehicle is passive. Why? She can't tell the difference and passive is perfectly acceptable to her ear. My point was that active vs. passive is dependent on the listener. Fact. End threadjack.


Haha you're grasping at straws here. I don't think anybody was suggesting that everybody should run the same setup. I think the only real point here is that active can do everything that passive can do, but passive can't do everything that active can do. In other words, there's no ADVANTAGES to running passive, aside from space issues, simplicity, or other non-sound-related things.


----------



## zpaguy (Jan 17, 2010)

MarkZ said:


> Haha you're grasping at straws here. I don't think anybody was suggesting that everybody should run the same setup. I think the only real point here is that active can do everything that passive can do, but passive can't do everything that active can do. In other words, there's no ADVANTAGES to running passive, aside from space issues, simplicity, or other non-sound-related things.


Thats what I meant, LOL!


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

MarkZ said:


> Haha you're grasping at straws here. I don't think anybody was suggesting that everybody should run the same setup. I think the only real point here is that active can do everything that passive can do, but passive can't do everything that active can do. In other words, there's no ADVANTAGES to running passive, aside from space issues, simplicity, or other non-sound-related things.




Just off the top of my head, five advantages of passive over active:


With the proper tools I can "dial-in" curves which aren't available in an active setup. For instance, in a 2nd order setup I can modify one of the two components to change where the knee of the slope is.
You can't modify the impedance curve of a driver with an active setup; it can be done in a passive with $2 worth of resistors
In a passive network you can create really subtle filters, such as replacing one leg of an L-Pad with an inductor instead of a resistor to shape the frequency by just 1-6dB. Try finding an active crossover that will do that
The component with the lowest noise is no component at all

Even if cost was not an object, passive crossovers are great for control freaks like me.


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

First off There ARE reported noise issues with passive networks, lots of them, inductors picking up stray signal from wiring, etc.

As for drawing any slope you want.....










Anything you want... anything at all. out of band filters to reduce phase issues, stacking slopes and TYPES of slopes, you want a bessel then a L-R... no problem. All pass filters, phase adjustment, you name it.....

Get out your checkbook, make space for it and the possibilities are endless.


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

EQ screenshot....


----------



## lycan (Dec 20, 2009)

Patrick Bateman said:


> Just off the top of my head, five advantages of passive over active:
> 
> 
> With the proper tools I can "dial-in" curves which aren't available in an active setup. For instance, in a 2nd order setup I can modify one of the two components to change where the knee of the slope is.
> ...


If you're willing to get out the soldering iron and modify/replace the passive components in a _passive_ filter, why not be willing to modify/replace the passive components in an _active_ filter? Only difference is the absence of inductors (active filters use capacitors & feedback to generate the same function).

Bottom line : there's no transfer function that can be implemented passively, that can't be duplicated actively. And they are both equally "tweakable" ... if you're willing to modify the active network, as well as the passive network.


----------



## justinmreina (Nov 3, 2009)

I may be stepping beyond the boundaries of my experience a bit, but one factor no one has been courageous enough to mention is the psychological one. I haven't seen as many numbers to support this discussion as would be satisfying, which might point to the fact that the passive guys sleep better at night with the theoretical performance of a non-active system. And if I had a passive configuration, I would sleep better too

-Justin


----------



## Fast1one (Apr 6, 2007)

zpaguy said:


> amps im not going to even bother as there are so many options. not sure about 10 cd player builders, that many builders barely exist but here is what i get off the top of my head:
> 
> alpine
> kenwood
> ...


Every SINGLE one of those, with the exception of the pioneer, has limitations as to what you can do. Would you like to hear them?

Alpine: Can't defeat tweeter crossover. Doesn't go lower than 1000hz for highpass. Lack of individual gains. 

Kenwood: Very limited crossover options and minimal slope options. Less than optimal T/A settings. 

Sony: Nothing really available unless you buy used and are prepared to pay big bucks.

Eclipse: Similar limitations as Alpine IIRC.

JVC/Clarion: Lack 4th order slopes, which is BIG.

Pioneer is pretty much the ONLY manufacture to have very minimal limitations, especially with the introduction of the DEX-P99RS. 

You need to realize that these limitations may not apply to you, but that doesn't mean that others aren't going to find them annoying. The horn guys will definitely agree on the limitations of the Alpine highpass. 

No one here discussing this with you is advocating passive over active. We are just trying to explain to you that there are still certain circumstances that require a passive setup, plain and simple. Will it be a bit more involved to achieve the same goals? Sure. Can the passive setup do EVERYTHING an active setup can do? *Absolutely.*


----------



## benny (Apr 7, 2008)

My 9855 alpine can defeat the tweeter xover.


----------



## sam3535 (Jan 21, 2007)

MarkZ said:


> Haha you're grasping at straws here. I don't think anybody was suggesting that everybody should run the same setup. I think the only real point here is that active can do everything that passive can do, but passive can't do everything that active can do. In other words, there's no ADVANTAGES to running passive, aside from space issues, simplicity, or other non-sound-related things.


What are you talking about? I don't advocate either one and, again, I don't care who runs what. Who said anything about running the same set up? My point was, again, the choice for either is up to the individual. Stating that active is better than passive or vice versa doesn't make any sense unless it is put into context. The context being what are the goals of the user.


----------



## sam3535 (Jan 21, 2007)

benny said:


> My 9855 alpine can defeat the tweeter xover.


9855 is not currently in production which is what my post mentioned.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

Patrick Bateman said:


> Just off the top of my head, five advantages of passive over active:
> 
> 
> With the proper tools I can "dial-in" curves which aren't available in an active setup. For instance, in a 2nd order setup I can modify one of the two components to change where the knee of the slope is.





Why can't you do that with an active arrangement?



> [*]You can't modify the impedance curve of a driver with an active setup; it can be done in a passive with $2 worth of resistors


That's not a crossover. You can do that in an active setup. Why you would want to, I don't know.



> [*]In a passive network you can create really subtle filters, such as replacing one leg of an L-Pad with an inductor instead of a resistor to shape the frequency by just 1-6dB. Try finding an active crossover that will do that


Explain.



> [*]The component with the lowest noise is no component at all



Active is noiseless if you put it either in your source or use the input buffers of your amplifier (ie. amp crossovers).



> Even if cost was not an object, passive crossovers are great for control freaks like me.


And active is even better for control freaks.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

sam3535 said:


> What are you talking about? I don't advocate either one and, again, I don't care who runs what. Who said anything about running the same set up? My point was, again, the choice for either is up to the individual. Stating that active is better than passive or vice versa doesn't make any sense unless it is put into context. The context being what are the goals of the user.


Sure. But that was never the point of the thread, or where the thread has evolved. Active does what passive does, and then some. That's all I'm saying. So nobody can really advocate using a passive network, UNLESS their decision is based on something other than the actual audio. We've heard examples like cost, looks, space, psychology, ease of installation, etc. Yeah, the importance of all those things is left up to the user. But there's no reason, from an audio perspective, that passive is better than active.


----------



## sam3535 (Jan 21, 2007)

MarkZ said:


> Sure. But that was never the point of the thread, or where the thread has evolved. Active does what passive does, and then some. That's all I'm saying. So nobody can really advocate using a passive network, UNLESS their decision is based on something other than the actual audio. We've heard examples like cost, looks, space, psychology, ease of installation, etc. Yeah, the importance of all those things is left up to the user. But there's no reason, from an audio perspective, that passive is better than active.


Thanks for the clarification as I was confused where you were going with that and how you got there.


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

Patrick Bateman said:


> Just off the top of my head, five advantages of passive over active:
> 
> 
> With the proper tools I can "dial-in" curves which aren't available in an active setup. For instance, in a 2nd order setup I can modify one of the two components to change where the knee of the slope is.
> ...


Was about to say it but you beat me to it  

One thing to add since some of the guyz like T/A so much, you can make a passive crossover that accepts (in a 3 way) 3 different signals from 3 amps. 
With advantages from all of the above... 

Kelvin


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

Fast1one said:


> Every SINGLE one of those, with the exception of the pioneer, has limitations as to what you can do. Would you like to hear them?
> 
> Alpine: Can't defeat tweeter crossover. Doesn't go lower than 1000hz for highpass. Lack of individual gains.
> 
> ...


corrected  

Kelvin


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

How on earth can you say that you can passively do everything that you can do actively?

Here's one: Can you create a STABLE filter based on a constant load impedance?


----------



## justinmreina (Nov 3, 2009)

Patrick, can you create an FIR filter passively?? lol maybe in the simplest case...

-Justin


----------



## Fast1one (Apr 6, 2007)

MarkZ said:


> How on earth can you say that you can passively do everything that you can do actively?
> 
> Here's one: Can you create a STABLE filter based on a constant load impedance?


I mentioned that advantage a while back  Using powerful drivers with large voice coils and heatsinks can reduce or eliminate this problem. But not everyone has the money for it


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

Fast1one said:


> I mentioned that advantage a while back  Using powerful drivers with large voice coils and heatsinks can reduce or eliminate this problem. But not everyone has the money for it


So first change out your speakers, and then have a set of winter crossovers and summer crossovers?


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

subwoofery said:


> Was about to say it but you beat me to it
> 
> One thing to add since some of the guyz like T/A so much, you can make a passive crossover that accepts (in a 3 way) 3 different signals from 3 amps.
> With advantages from all of the above...
> ...


Good point. My favorite crossover is BOTH. Active on the subs, because big caps and big inductors can cost $50 a pop. Passive on the mids and tweets because I'm a control freak and a cheapskate, and I've never seen an inexpensive amp that offers low noise, clean output, and excellent crossover filters. (My current amplifier is from a pawn shop - beggars can't be choosers.)


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

Patrick Bateman said:


> Good point. My favorite crossover is BOTH. Active on the subs, because big caps and big inductors can cost $50 a pop. Passive on the mids and tweets because I'm a control freak and a cheapskate, and I've never seen an inexpensive amp that offers low noise, clean output, and excellent crossover filters. (My current amplifier is from a pawn shop - beggars can't be choosers.)


I've got an a/d/s/ P640 and P840 for sale. Interested? Then you can ditch those antiquated passive filters.


----------



## audiogodz1 (Jan 5, 2010)

zpaguy said:


> alpine
> kenwood
> sony
> eclipse
> ...


Mcintosh
Nakamichi


----------



## don_chuwish (Oct 29, 2009)

Great technical discussion and I understand the OP's point, but I think the reason we still have passive is market driven. It's customers like me to be honest. Even in DIYMA land.
DIY for me usually means that by the time I'm done with the DIY project, I know enough about it that I want to start over and do it better... but it's already done so maybe I will maybe I won't. In other words, DIY often means inexperienced, amateur, beginner, etc.
Buying a set of comps in a box with passive crossovers included is easy. Installing them is easy. When I think about what it would take just to run speaker wire for active it's discouraging (given current door mounted drivers). Cost is a huge factor.
For me to go active would just be way more complicated and expensive, so it's not a good starting point. Now, would I like to? Sure, if I had the $$ and a project car that didn't need to be on the road tomorrow it'd be great fun. But that probably won't ever happen for me - or most other people that spend money on car audio I'm guessing.

- D


----------



## zpaguy (Jan 17, 2010)

audiogodz1 said:


> Mcintosh
> Nakamichi


I didnt remember any Nak or Mac HU's that had built in processors, so I left them off the list... thanks for correcting me!


----------



## audiogodz1 (Jan 5, 2010)

zpaguy said:


> I didnt remember any Nak or Mac HU's that had built in processors, so I left them off the list... thanks for correcting me!


Well if you are going for direct processing then perhaps not. I was just looking for abilities above the Pioneer dolphins from '99 LOL......


----------



## zpaguy (Jan 17, 2010)

audiogodz1 said:


> Well if you are going for direct processing then perhaps not. I was just looking for abilities above the Pioneer dolphins from '99 LOL......


Dolphins, cripes, I forgot about those! One of my buddys bought that Pioneer "back in the day" and thought it was the shiznat. I never strayed from my tried and true Alpines, despite their lack of dolphins!


----------



## Ram4ever (Oct 21, 2009)

Something that just came to mind which might be a useful read for folks wanting to learn what happens to audio when comparing low-order with higher order crossovers would be some application notes that the semi-pro audio company Rane made available back when I was repairing pro audio equipment for regional and national acts. There's quite a few application notes in the Rane library, but here are what directly applies to this topic.

(BTW, this one gets into considerable detail about how low-order crossover's phase distortion and time mis-alignment trashes your impulse response and causes nasty directivity issues which can be dealt with via 24dB/octave crossovers and physical or electronic time alignment, which will improve both sound your quality and imaging.) 

Got your interest yet? ;0)

"Linkwitz-Riley Crossovers: A Primer"
Linkwitz-Riley Crossovers: A Primer

"A Bessel Filter Crossover, and Its Relation to Others"
A Bessel Filter Crossover, and Its Relation to Others

This one gets into the actual component-level design, which may be particularly handy for anybody wanting to alter parameters on an existing 24 dB/octave crossover, or to reverse Engineer one.

"A FOURTH-ORDER STATE VARIABLE FILTER FOR
LINKWITZ-RILEY ACTIVE CROSSOVER DESIGNS"
http://www.rane.com/pdf/linriley.pdf

It might be worth checking out the rest of their library; *lots* of cool info in there, including documents on cabling, audio tests, measurements and specifications, audio processing, equalization and it's effects, etc. - And it's all free - thanks to some folks with vision at their company! It's good stuff to stay busy with during the cold weather.

Library

Hope this gives you all lots of fresh ideas.


----------

