# Anybody ever heard a set of 3 way passive crossovers that sounded as good as active



## coomaster1 (Jul 22, 2010)

Hi,Has anybody ever heard a set of 3 way passive crossovers that sounded as good as an actively tuned set up, or very close to it.,And if so who were the crossovers made by.


----------



## zumbo (Feb 4, 2012)

coomaster1 said:


> Hi,Has anybody ever heard a set of 3 way passive crossovers that sounded as good as an actively tuned set up, or very close to it.,And if so who were the crossovers made by.


MB Quart PXD 316.

I have a set not in use. I am running add-a-woofer these days, instead of 3-way.


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

coomaster1 said:


> Hi,Has anybody ever heard a set of 3 way passive crossovers that sounded as good as an actively tuned set up, or very close to it.,And if so who were the crossovers made by.


If active crossovers were superior to passive crossovers, than the majority of home hi fidelity speakers would use them. And they don't.

IMHO, the main reason that people believe that active crossovers are superior to passive crossovers is because the myth has been perpetuated by salespeople in an effort to sell a LOT more gear.

I *will* agree that the tide has shifted towards active crossovers. For instance, amplifiers are cheaper and smaller than they've ever been, so the main argument for passive crossovers is fading. (IE, you can get five channels of amplification for under $200 now; twenty years ago that would cost you about $500.)

Having said that, I still think there are some powerful arguments for passive:


Ultimate flexibility. Dial in the slope you want. Plus, you can tweak the rolloff.
Ultimate low noise. There isn't an active xover in the world that has a noise floor that's even CLOSE to an active xover.
Potentially cheaper.
Maximum SPL. If you have a car like mine, you'll find that it's hard to get really big SPL unless you maximize your alternator's output. And I don't want to buy a new alternator. So the use of passive xovers allows me to wring every last watt out of three amplifier channels.


----------



## TAMUmpower (Jan 29, 2010)

Patrick Bateman said:


> If active crossovers were superior to passive crossovers, than the majority of home hi fidelity speakers would use them. And they don't.
> 
> IMHO, the main reason that people believe that active crossovers are superior to passive crossovers is because the myth has been perpetuated by salespeople in an effort to sell a LOT more gear.
> 
> ...


I dont believe thats true at all. Its not a sales scheme. The main reason home systems can get by very well with them is one, the speakers come in the enclosures they are going to play in so the performance is very predictable. Typically you have some 2 or 3 way system in an enclosure so they know what tweeter / mid / midbass are going to be used and can predict much more accurately where the crossover should be for those specific drivers. Two, you arent going to have the crazy early reflections that an automobile has. And three, the size of the average room is going to be a lot more consistent than the multitude of different install locations, interior cabin volumes and materials that you have to work around in an automobile.

If you are referring to price then yes..sure...a passive crossover is superior. Or if I took the cutoff frequency and slopes from my digital crossovers and just built a passive setup to mirror that then I could get the same end result, minus a lot of power efficiency from the passive network sucking it all up.

Problem is because of all the differences in auto equipment and vehicles you arent going to just know exactly what you need to just get a passive setup that matches ur setup perfectly. Active is superior for its adjustability and finding the frequency and slope you actually need.

Selling someone active equipment when they are just a beginner and cant tell the difference might be a scheme in a way...I mean they are still getting a better system they just might not have the ears to notice yet. Otherwise whats the point in spending money on good equipment if you cant even dial in the right crossovers for ur listening environment..


----------



## coomaster1 (Jul 22, 2010)

Hi, Patrick,Nice to hear from some one willing to respond to a passive crossover post.Nobody here, judging by their lack of response to this post.Believe that a passive crossover can sound as good as an active crossover. Who makes a set of 3 way passive crossovers that allow you to get the maximum sound quality out of your SQ car stereo.I will be using them for high volume,detailed listening. I don't care if they half to come from home audio, or are not very well known on these forums.I just want to get the most for sq out of my 3 way speakers. It seems to be an uphill battle when you ask about quality passive crossovers,or passive crossovers in general, because most people here are die hard fans of active.My point proven by the fact your only the second person to reply to my post.Nobody other than you wants to hear the truth ,that some of the finest sounding speakers in the world all use passive crossovers.Seems to be all about using a big fancy processor hooked to a computer to try and get good sound quality.I'm not interested in the active crossover setting Olympics going on here. ,Where you are always tweaking your sound for every song.I want to set it up for maximum sound quality and enjoy listening to it.I commend you for responding to this post,and trust you will lead me to some damn fine sound quality crossovers. Thanks


----------



## chargedtaco (Feb 27, 2008)

Patrick Bateman said:


> If active crossovers were superior to passive crossovers, than the majority of home hi fidelity speakers would use them. And they don't.


I think the reason passives are used in home setup is that the drivers are near each other, whereas a vehicle has drivers mounted all over the place. Home speakers come installed in a box that is tuned at the factory. Car speakers come raw and you mount as you please....do you see why passives aren't the best for car audio?


----------



## TAMUmpower (Jan 29, 2010)

coomaster1 said:


> Hi, Patrick,Nice to hear from some one willing to respond to a passive crossover post.Nobody here, judging by their lack of response to this post.Believe that a passive crossover can sound as good as an active crossover. Who makes a set of 3 way passive crossovers that allow you to get the maximum sound quality out of your SQ car stereo.I will be using them for high volume,detailed listening. I don't care if they half to come from home audio, or are not very well known on these forums.I just want to get the most for sq out of my 3 way speakers. It seems to be an uphill battle when you ask about quality passive crossovers,or passive crossovers in general, because most people here are die hard fans of active.My point proven by the fact your only the second person to reply to my post.Nobody other than you wants to hear the truth ,that some of the finest sounding speakers in the world all use passive crossovers.Seems to be all about using a big fancy processor hooked to a computer to try and get good sound quality.I'm not interested in the active crossover setting Olympics going on here. ,Where you are always tweaking your sound for every song.I want to set it up for maximum sound quality and enjoy listening to it.I commend you for responding to this post,and trust you will lead me to some damn fine sound quality crossovers. Thanks


I'm not aware of anyone that changes their crossovers from song to song. That right there is a myth that going active is so you can constantly tune ur system. It's not. It's so you can tune it once CORRECTLY for ur listening environment and equipment...and then leave it.

If you buy passive crossovers they may be intended for certain speakers but they clearly will have no idea of ur listening environment. It's not a matter of sound quality here, its just getting the correct frequency and slope for everything to blend and phase correctly is dang near impossible in an automobile interior if its preset from the factory.

For example in my car my mid and tweeter need to have about a 500hz gap between the crossover points to not create a large peak. Another vehicle might require an overlap....you cant adjust for that with a preset crossover.

However, if you were aware of the settings you need for ur speakers and ur install locations/environment then you could build passives to meet those frequencies and slopes.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

Actives are much easier to dial in the slope you want.

Noise? I bet most DSP have noise low enough you can't hear it.

Potentially cheaper? Than a miniDSP? Plus you have to buy much more values of passives to tweak out the final product. And if you are using low impedance speakers, values of parts can increase a lot. Then you have to worry about zobels on the speakers to combat impedance rise. Active that is not a worry.

More SPL? I would doubt that. 

Your arguement sounds really in favor of active rather than passive...all but one point are points in favor for active systems.

Using home speakers as a reference is a bit of a slippery slope. These are the same people who have cable elevators and Shakti stones. And active is catching on there...the Emerald Physics speakers are active and remote setup to your room. Can you do that with passives?



Patrick Bateman said:


> If active crossovers were superior to passive crossovers, than the majority of home hi fidelity speakers would use them. And they don't.
> 
> IMHO, the main reason that people believe that active crossovers are superior to passive crossovers is because the myth has been perpetuated by salespeople in an effort to sell a LOT more gear.
> 
> ...


----------



## coomaster1 (Jul 22, 2010)

Can a person at least make it easier on him or herself by placing the speakers in a line array like the 3 way home speaker does,aka tweeter at the top,midrange centered below it and woofer at the bottom for better sound right off the bat before tweaking and setting an active or passive crossover.If it's good enough for home audio in that top to bottom line array why not just copy that and keep the install looking and sounding like a quality 3 way speaker home set up.Even if you couldn't get the subwoofer below the other 2 speakers that shouldn't matter since the bass is non directional. Also the home speaker 3 way speakers for years only consisted of a tweeter,a midrange and a woofer. All the sounds are produced by those 3 speakers.Why all of a sudden when we get to car audio do we all of a sudden need to hear the words midbass for extra expense and installation grief. If 3 speakers are enough to produce all the sounds of music.Why not stick to what tested and true for hump teen dozen years. Would make setting up any crossover weather it be passive or active a lot simpler.


----------



## Lorin (May 5, 2011)

suprised nobody has brought up the fact that a passive network takes out the ability to INDIVIDUALLY change the timing of the speakers so that they "appear" to be coming from the same source. I have used (and really liked) a passive network back in the early 90's that sounded great. That said, I am enjoying the less expensive amplification, d-class power (more amps without needing to necessarily modify your charging system), and clarity, along with the ability to tune each speaker for frequency, slope, and timing.


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

thehatedguy said:


> Actives are much easier to dial in the slope you want.
> 
> Noise? I bet most DSP have noise low enough you can't hear it.
> 
> ...


But Jason, look at the title of this thread:

*"Anybody ever heard a set of 3 way passive crossovers that sounded as good as active"*


It's just an absurd question, and it perpetuates this idea that going 'active' is always an upgrade.

Here's an example of this:

A few years back, a friend of mine had me tag along while he went car audio shopping. He dropped about $500 on a two-way component set, and the salesperson told him that he need to 'upgrade' to an active xover.

*Which is just totally ****ing absurd.*

This component set was very well engineered, and the xover was every bit as good as what you'd expect to see in a $500 set. Air core inductors, quality caps, solid connectors.

But the salesperson just spewed this ridiculous assertion that trashing that xover was going to improve things.

My friend was using fairly pricey amplification, so ditching that xover would have added another $500 to the install.

*Another thing that pissed me off was that the salesperson told my friend to use the active xover which was built into the amplifier.* Which, obviously, was very limited. It basically had three settings and a fixed slope.

If the salesperson had recommended a flexible and high quality xover, such as AudioControl, I would have been a lot less livid.

So basically we had two options:

Option A - My friend listens to me, and buys one amplifier for subs and front stage. (We'd picked out a JL Audio amp that had a built in active xover, a class AB front stage and a class D sub amp in one chassis.) Total price - about $1000
Option B - My friend listens to the snake oil salesperson, and buys one amplifier for subs and front stage, plus a second amplifier *just for the ****ing tweeters.* Total price - about $1500

The whole thing just left a bad taste in my mouth, and reminded me why so many car audio systems just sound like ****. 90% of these salespeople are more interested in juicing up the cost of the system by selling a pile of amplifiers, instead of focusing on good sound. On top of all this, he had a two seat sports car, so the addition of a second amplifier basically meant that he had to spend a bunch of cash of a flashy trunk install.

And, obviously, I put my money where my mouth is, and I invest a lot of effort in figuring out how to get good sound for less money. I think that passives are an important piece of that.


----------



## estione (Jul 24, 2009)

coomaster1 said:


> Can a person at least make it easier on him or herself by placing the speakers in a line array like the 3 way home speaker does,aka tweeter at the top,midrange centered below it and woofer at the bottom for better sound right off the bat before tweaking and setting an active or passive crossover.
> 
> Much easier said than done, A car has so many obstacle's to overcome compared to a "living" room


----------



## coomaster1 (Jul 22, 2010)

Patrick,I'm all for better sound for less money,and less amp install.Instead of having to rewire my whole stereo and rip my entire car apart.With some quality passives.I will just half to open up my trunk and remove the 4 screws that hold each crossover and change the speaker wires to the new passives.Total time of mabe a half an hour and hundreds of dollars less,probable more like thousands.Would simply like to end the debate and find out which passive crossovers are high quality and put them in for high volume ,sound quality listening. Here are the 2 sets I've tried so far so nobody re-recommends them to me.The first 3 way crossover I tried was from the focal utopia 165 3 way set. They sounded low and muffled ,then I moved onto the oldschool alpine spx-f17t crossovers.They blew the focals out of the water badly.and allowed me to turn my stereo almost full volume with no distortion. I am looking for passives that will out do them for SQ,and allow for everything to sound naturally and get the full volume listening I am after.None of my component speakers are underpowered,they are all amplified over the rated specs and sound very good already.I'm just looking to get that final little bit extra out of everything and would like to try another set of passives that people know that are vastly superior to the alpine spx-f17t crossovers.Don't want to waste time and money on opinions of what may be better.I need to know for a fact they are better.In a tiny town of 3000 people and no quality stereo shops around your factual input is invaluable.This is the only thing left I half to do in my stereo for me to start the enjoyable listening sessions.Please help me finish up. What passives are for sure better sounding than the alpines.That's really what this post was about. Thanks


----------



## AAAAAAA (Oct 5, 2007)

From the OPs post, the OP wants to get a passive xover that sounds good or gets similar results as active.

Well it can IMO but the xover has to be designed for your speakers and your environment to match the sound of an active system. (This route requires experimentation in a much more time consuming fashion then with an active system).

The next best thing is to buy a set of comps that come with passive xovers.

The very least desirable thing is to buy just any xover to use with speakers you own (this to me is the direction the OP seems to be considering)...no matter how "good" that xover is, being good isn't whats required, being set for your specific install\gear is what matters most.


----------



## estione (Jul 24, 2009)

Check out Carsten's crossover's, But make sure you have deep pocket's and long arms.


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

coomaster1 said:


> Patrick,I'm all for better sound for less money,and less amp install.Instead of having to rewire my whole stereo and rip my entire car apart.With some quality passives.I will just half to open up my trunk and remove the 4 screws that hold each crossover and change the speaker wires to the new passives.Total time of mabe a half an hour and hundreds of dollars less,probable more like thousands.Would simply like to end the debate and find out which passive crossovers are high quality and put them in for high volume ,sound quality listening. Here are the 2 sets I've tried so far so nobody re-recommends them to me.The first 3 way crossover I tried was from the focal utopia 165 3 way set. They sounded low and muffled ,then I moved onto the oldschool alpine spx-f17t crossovers.They blew the focals out of the water badly.and allowed me to turn my stereo almost full volume with no distortion. I am looking for passives that will out do them for SQ,and allow for everything to sound naturally and get the full volume listening I am after.None of my component speakers are underpowered,they are all amplified over the rated specs and sound very good already.I'm just looking to get that final little bit extra out of everything and would like to try another set of passives that people know that are vastly superior to the alpine spx-f17t crossovers.Don't want to waste time and money on opinions of what may be better.I need to know for a fact they are better.In a tiny town of 3000 people and no quality stereo shops around your factual input is invaluable.This is the only thing left I half to do in my stereo for me to start the enjoyable listening sessions.Please help me finish up. What passives are for sure better sounding than the alpines.That's really what this post was about. Thanks



Oh you can't just mix and match crossovers. That's simply a crapshoot. I thought you were in a situation similar to my friend, where you were considering the use of an active crossover *instead of the one that came with the speaker.*

What type of component set are these? Or if it's not a component set, what is the midrange and the tweeter?


One method of going passive, if you don't have the time/money to invest in measurement equipment, is to take a home speaker and simply drop it into the kicks. For instance, I did that with this speaker about ten years back and that worked pretty well:


----------



## goodstuff (Jan 9, 2008)

Patrick Bateman said:


> If active crossovers were superior to passive crossovers, than the majority of home hi fidelity speakers would use them. And they don't.
> 
> IMHO, the main reason that people believe that active crossovers are superior to passive crossovers is because the myth has been perpetuated by salespeople in an effort to sell a LOT more gear.
> 
> ...


....


----------



## coomaster1 (Jul 22, 2010)

Hi,They are not a component set.They are 3 separate speakers.The tweeter is an fairly big oldschool 6010 dome tweeter,the other speaker is a seas lotus rw165/1,and the other one is a focal utopia 4 inch speaker from the 165 component set. The alpine spx-f17t crossovers make them all sound pretty good.Just looking for that little bit extra quality out of them.Hope that helps to pick a quality passive crossover.


----------



## Oliver (Jun 25, 2007)

If you purchase a system that has been designed for the application in which you are using it,(measured responses that are then passively crossed over), no problem, will work very well.

If you are trying to save money by throwing any ole passive crossovers not being used for their intended speaker system, the outcome could be terrible or magically delicious [ crap shoot, somebody loses, somebody wins].


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

I have heard passive systems that have blown me away...we are talking passive EQ too.

But they are much harder to do and get right compared to active.

It can be done. It can be awesome. It doesn't happen easily or with off the self crossovers.

However to buy an amp and go active between midranges and tweeters...yeah, I don't know if I could do that in a 3 way set especially if the tweeters were anywhere near the midranges.

Heck, I am thinking about doing passives between my horns and midbasses and EQing the whole thing with a miniDSP. Until I can get a second miniDSP or another processor.


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

coomaster1 said:


> Hi,They are not a component set.They are 3 separate speakers.The tweeter is an fairly big oldschool 6010 dome tweeter,the other speaker is a seas lotus rw165/1,and the other one is a focal utopia 4 inch speaker from the 165 component set. The alpine spx-f17t crossovers make them all sound pretty good.Just looking for that little bit extra quality out of them.Hope that helps to pick a quality passive crossover.


Eek.

This is the type of situation where an active xover is ideal, unless you have measurement equipment.

I totally though you had a component set with a factory xover, and were pondering whether it was worthwhile to ditch it.

If you want to go passive, I'd say there's about three semi-decent options:

Option one: Look up the spec sheets, pick some xover points, then go to carstereo.com and use the calculators there to come up with a passive. Buy the parts using surplus caps and inductors from Speaker City, Parts Express, Meniscus or Madisound

This option is fairly involved. I'd stick with low-order slopes simply because it's really hard to do steep passive xovers without a woofer tester and a acoustic measurement rig.

Option two: Find a loudspeaker project on the 'net that uses drives that are of similar size, impedance, and efficiency. This is a bit of a crapshoot, but much faster than option one

Option three: Just plug the drivers in to various crossovers. This is a total crapshoot, because passive components are ultra-dependent on the specs of the driver. The odds of this turning out well are pretty slim I'm afraid


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

You could probably find enough data on similar speakers or the actual speakers to make your own custom passives. You would need to use something like SPLTrace to copy your FR and impedance curves. Then import them into a program like Passive Crossover Designer. You can plug in your driver offsets and what not into PCD. There are quite a few places out there that can show you how to use all of the tools and features of the spread sheets...they are free spread sheets too.


----------



## Hanatsu (Nov 9, 2010)

I've messed around with 3-way passives a few times. And it complicates/limits the installation. It's hard to get right, the speakers must be in close proximity to eachother, at least the midbass/midrange to avoid really nasty phase issues which T/A could have fixed. Some passives, like DLS Ultimates have bi-amp capability which enable the use of T/A. This said, passives should be able to sound as good as an active setup if done right, I've only heard one car though(!!) that implemented passives in a good way on competitions. It was a kickpanel build with bi-amped passives. So I guess I have heard a 3-way passive that does sound as good as an active setup.


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 12, 2008)

I can say I have heard some passive setups that kill many active setups, but I can also say it the other way around.


----------



## jpswanberg (Jan 14, 2009)

I have heard the Dynaudio 360 system in both passive and active form. Both sounded great. Different cars, so a direct comparison can't be made. The passives were time aligned using kick panels (ie. physically) while the actives were time aligned electronically. Tonality, imaging, soundstaging and clarity at high volume were phenominal with both. In my opinion, both ways can get great sound, but because each car is different, installation/tuning/driver choice will often make a bigger difference as opposed to something as arbitrary as active v. passive.


----------



## mires (Mar 5, 2011)

I've been considering picking up the old Boston Acoustics 6.53x set which is bi-ampable. I would stick the mid and tweet in the kickpanels and the midbass in the doors. Being that I have the ability to time align and the ability to biamp these with a little over 100 watts per channel, would most of you agree that I could achieve the same level of sound quality out of this setup as going active?


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 12, 2008)

mires said:


> I've been considering picking up the old Boston Acoustics 6.53x set which is bi-ampable. I would stick the mid and tweet in the kickpanels and the midbass in the doors. Being that I have the ability to time align and the ability to biamp these with a little over 100 watts per channel, would most of you agree that I could achieve the same level of sound quality out of this setup as going active?


I would. Kicks are the best spot for passives, especially the mid and tweet down there. CTC spacing will be close, which is good, plus being in the kicks, it will minimize PLD's.


----------



## jamiebosco (Dec 10, 2011)

I have run my 3-way fronts both active and semi-active and I actually preferred the semi-active (or semi-passive depending how you look at it lol)

My midbass is run active (bandpassed through my headunit)[email protected]

My midrange and tweeter are run through the passive.The HPF for the midrange is handled via my headunit,the midrange LPF and tweeter HPF is handled via the passive crossover.I have the midrange HP'd @ [email protected] and the passive HPF/LPF is [email protected]

This seems to work well for me as the midbass are in the doors and the midrange/tweeter are mounted pretty close together in the pillars.This means I can still use Time Alignment effectively


----------



## Woosey (Feb 2, 2011)

Lorin said:


> suprised nobody has brought up the fact that a passive network takes out the ability to INDIVIDUALLY change the timing of the speakers so that they "appear" to be coming from the same source. I have used (and really liked) a passive network back in the early 90's that sounded great. That said, I am enjoying the less expensive amplification, d-class power (more amps without needing to necessarily modify your charging system), and clarity, along with the ability to tune each speaker for frequency, slope, and timing.


Not true!

Check the all-pass network... It's a phase shifting network that can be used to time-allign drivers...


----------



## zumbo (Feb 4, 2012)

zumbo said:


> MB Quart PXD 316.
> 
> I have a set not in use. I am running add-a-woofer these days, instead of 3-way.


I am of the idea that a x-over designed for a certain set is not the best idea for a mixed set. The best solution for passive is a custom x-over, as recommended by others.

*BUT*, lets look at the PXD-316. We have tweeter level adjustment, and bi-amp ability. I feel as though *IF* the OP wants to do the _crap-shoot_, these may just be one of the best options.


----------



## TAMUmpower (Jan 29, 2010)

This is a pointless discussion. If you heard a car that had a passive set of crossovers and it sounded better than an active crossover setup it for sure had nothing to do with the passive crossovers...and vice versa.

There is ONLY the correct crossover frequency / slope for a set of drivers + install location / vehicle and the incorrect settings. You either have it set right or you dont. If it is set correctly then your setup will sound better than if it isnt.

If by some chance you magically get the .1% chance a premade passive network is correct for your installation then it would sound better than an active crossover where you were too uneducated to find the correct crossover settings. That is all.

The reason active setups sound better than passives is for the reason they actually have the ability to change the settings to the correct ones. Guaranteed whatever passive crossovers you buy will not be 100% optimal for your installation. So if you want to be able to test and find the settings you need then there is no other option than to have some sort of active processing.

End of discussion


----------



## ChrisB (Jul 3, 2008)

Active just makes things easier with regards to replacing roached drivers and mismatching drivers with different sensitivities. A custom passive setup can sound just as good, even in a vehicle, but it is time consuming to design one for a set of off the shelf raw components. I heard such a vehicle with a custom passive setup, but, the person who built it also has an older LEAP analyzer.

Now with regards to off the shelf passive components, the older Alpine F#1 status passive was pretty good when it came to dialing in phase to compensate for the placement of the drivers.

EDIT: It looks like the SPX-17 pros allow for the same thing with their phase modules. Now I am interested in trying a set.


----------



## brett (Apr 27, 2005)

this is how i am running my front stage as well. still playing around with different passives between my 4's and tweets, but going active between the rest. i figure since my mids/tweets were literally right next to each other, and on the same plane, that t.a. would be the same for the pair as it would for each by itself, thus saving me 2 channels of amplification. so far, so good




jamiebosco said:


> I have run my 3-way fronts both active and semi-active and I actually preferred the semi-active (or semi-passive depending how you look at it lol)
> 
> My midbass is run active (bandpassed through my headunit)[email protected]
> 
> ...


----------

