# Why do you go Passive vs. Active?



## LiquidClen (Dec 27, 2005)

I am wondering why some people prefer passive. To me the only advantage is you don't have to tune. But finding mounting points for crossovers, as well as the lack of ability to tweak the sound to your liking coupled with the fact that 880's and 8053's can me had for ridiculously cheap these-days confuses me as to why you would prefer passive


----------



## Lumadar (Sep 28, 2007)

Cheap and easy. 

With all the problems I am having "cheap and easy" sounds pretty good right now


----------



## skylar112 (Dec 8, 2005)

LiquidClen said:


> IBut finding mounting points for crossovers, as well as the lack of ability to tweak the sound to your liking coupled with the fact that 880's and 8053's can me had for ridiculously cheap these-days confuses me as to why you would prefer passive



For me I considered myself to be a decent tuner. I went passive because I just couldn't tune it to sound as good as the set passively. Lotus really did their homework with the passive. I tried it actively with the same speakers I just couldn't get it to sound nearly as smooth as it is with the passive. Not to mention it just blends better. The power to tweak versus how go it sounds passively wasn't even close. Sometimes I wonder if we are all chasing after our own tails.


----------



## jj_diamond (Oct 3, 2007)

i've tried both. different amps and drivers. passive seems to have a fullness to it. passive you are running your drivers full range. i personally understand SQ better now running passive. i think active is nice for people who like to set the frequency limits on their drivers and have "headroom". for active to fully work correctly you need to have a 3 or 4 way setup IMO. i'm not guru or spec geek either.

here's my comparison-

active is like the guy who likes to race and has all kinds of gauges and a huge tach with a shift light and all the bells and whistles and likes to know everything going on with his engine.

passive is like the guy that knows his engine and knows how to drive it and doesn't need all that info.

make sense?

if i'm wrong then i suck.

one would think in a DIY audio forum you'd have more people building their own crossovers for specific applications rather than buying a HU with all kinds of processing. ever wonder why all the high end audiophile HU's don't have processing? i do. but that's me. and i try to use as little processing/EQ as needed.


----------



## lunchmoney (Dec 27, 2007)

Lumadar said:


> Cheap and easy.
> 
> With all the problems I am having "cheap and easy" sounds pretty good right now


to elaborate on the "easy" part: less wiring, less amp channels required, less electronic components... lots of less


----------



## jj_diamond (Oct 3, 2007)

sometimes less is more.


----------



## lunchmoney (Dec 27, 2007)

jj_diamond said:


> i've tried both. different amps and drivers. passive seems to have a fullness to it. passive you are running your drivers full range. i personally understand SQ better now running passive. i think active is nice for people who like to set the frequency limits on their drivers and have "headroom". for active to fully work correctly you need to have a 3 or 4 way setup IMO. i'm not guru or spec geek either.
> 
> here's my comparison-
> 
> ...


now you've got me wondering if i should go active, since I was only planning on going 2-way

my desire to go active comes from the simple desire to have separate gain control over the individual drivers... time alignment and control over the x-over freq's sounds great as well, and I'm looking forward to having that kind of control as well... but even if it were only gain control, that to me seems a compelling enough reason.

can you elaborate on how you think passives can sound better? I don't get it, considering how much control you have when you're active... can you elaborate please?

anyone else prefer a passive setup, given a choice? for reasons other than simplicity/cost?


----------



## lunchmoney (Dec 27, 2007)

skylar112 said:


> For me I considered myself to be a decent tuner. I went passive because I just couldn't tune it to sound as good as the set passively. Lotus really did their homework with the passive. I tried it actively with the same speakers I just couldn't get it to sound nearly as smooth as it is with the passive. Not to mention it just blends better. The power to tweak versus how go it sounds passively wasn't even close. Sometimes I wonder if we are all chasing after our own tails.


yikes... posts like this make me question going active, especially considering how good my phoenix gold rsd's already sound running passive... now I'm thinking: am I just going to f*ck it up?


----------



## jj_diamond (Oct 3, 2007)

lunchmoney said:


> now you've got me wondering if i should go active, since I was only planning on going 2-way
> 
> my desire to go active comes from the simple desire to have separate gain control over the individual drivers... time alignment and control over the x-over freq's sounds great as well, and I'm looking forward to having that kind of control as well... but even if it were only gain control, that to me seems a compelling enough reason.
> 
> ...


how do you listen to your music? try both if you can and see which one you like better. for me personally it's not about simplicity/cost. it's about how it sounds to me. i know the limits to my setup. with a really good SQ source i can turn it up to 35 on my 9887 and there's no distortion. with crappy recordings i won't turn it past 26-28. again, i know my setup. i tried it active and it doesn't sound right. no matter how i tweak it. that's what the passives are for, to blend the drivers in their respective frequency ranges. i have minimal EQing because of the distance the drivers are apart and for the peaks and roll offs. i'm sure there will bashing on this thread soon. or maybe someone will chime in with specs and technical data. lol. nonetheless, i say try it both ways and see for yourself what sounds best to you. 

it's hard for me to explain what i mean, sorry. some people say digital is better than analog, why? cd's are better than LP's, why? and vice-versa. i personally like analog and live recordings better than a digital compressed studio recording.

lets see if this works...
which one of these is easier to read

johnny/likes/to/eat/chocolate.

mary likes to eat candy.

stupid huh?


----------



## Bluto Blutarsky (Apr 1, 2007)

I do like the more natural sound of passive.


----------



## Oliver (Jun 25, 2007)

I like Mary  

Passive if the tweeters are next to the midranges in the kicks,[Ala ,Keith Turner ].

Bi-amp those babies, seperate gains for each driver


----------



## jj_diamond (Oct 3, 2007)

^ i would say no more than 6" apart.


----------



## lunchmoney (Dec 27, 2007)

Hmmm...

I wanna hear more... this is the first I've heard of the possibility that staying passive might be better...

My tweets are up high in the sails, and I don't plan on moving them... so I've always thought that going active is the best way to go...


----------



## Bluto Blutarsky (Apr 1, 2007)

a$$hole said:


> Bi-amp those babies, seperate gains for each driver


x2


----------



## MiniVanMan (Jun 28, 2005)

jj_diamond said:


> ^ i would say no more than 6" apart.


Depends on the frequency that the crossover is set at. Too far apart and you start to get lobing between the drivers, and other artifacts.

Understand something about active tuning. It's only as good as the processor that you're tuning with. If you're drivers aren't well matched to the capabilities of the processor, then you might have some problems. That's why processors like the PPI DCX-730 was so popular for the price. It allowed for crossover points in 1 hz increments, as well as EQ in 1 hz increments, with infinite Q adjustment (it seemed), and full time alignment. Most head units have very limited active tuning capability. Throw a Behringer DCX2496 on your speakers and if you can't get better sound than a passive crossover, then you don't know what you're doing.

Passives are truly hit and miss. Yeah, you can get good results with passives, and if you're truly lucky, you may even get great results. However, you really need to know how the crossover was designed, and what kind of mounting it was designed for. For most, including myself, the results can be very acceptable, and the ease of installation, and lower cost make it a very viable solution in a lot of cases where I'm recommending, designing, and installing a system for friends, or family. I use passives in my home designs, but those are for very controlled environments. Even then though, I still measure, and test each driver mounted, with the loudspeaker placed in the location it will eventually be in. Corners, walls, TVs, and just about anything else in your house can affect your overall response. 

So, I'll never completely bash passive crossovers. However, they are not optimal, and if given the ability to fine tune, with a good active crossover, I'll take that every time.

My wife has the Alpine 9887 in her car. It's a very basic active processor. So, with that I use drivers that are very easy to work with, the CA18, and LPG. Because I don't have the EQ capability of the more expensive crossovers, I needed to make sure I had drivers that maintained a nice smooth response, with no breakup (that I'd have to EQ out). Both drivers fit the bill, and it took literally about 20 minutes to tune. Since the 9887 doesn't have the greatest, or even really that good of an EQ feature, I didn't put myself in a situation where I would stress over the lack of usable EQ frequency points. Even the crossover points are extremely limited. So the 9887 is not what I would call a good active processor. It's very acceptable for the drivers I selected for it. It does have good time alignment, and frankly, to me that's the biggest benefit an active processor has to offer. 

Could I make a passive crossover to match what the 9887 is doing. Absolutely. It would be a simple 6db on the woofer, and 12 db on the tweeter. That's a function of the drivers themselves. Would I put a set of RS180s on the 9887. Absolutely not. Too much work, and the capabilities of the 9887 might leave me wanting. Would I have a problem using the RS180 with a Behringer DCX2496. Absolutely not there as well. The infinite processing power of the 2496 would allow for removing all the nasty artifacts the RS180 can exhibit, (most notably it's cone breakup). 

So, in summary, yes you can get good results with passive crossovers. It's hit or miss though. Most companies design their passives to be as neutral to mounting location as possible. That means your not getting an optimal response at the crossover point for any mounting location. Doesn't mean it won't sound good, it just means it won't sound great.


----------



## Guest (Feb 17, 2008)

I was thinking of going active using my sr6500 set but want to keep using the passive xover that ships with the system so I think I will stick with that. GL.


----------



## dbest2918 (Dec 28, 2007)

lunchmoney said:


> Hmmm...
> 
> I wanna hear more... this is the first I've heard of the possibility that staying passive might be better...
> 
> My tweets are up high in the sails, and I don't plan on moving them... so I've always thought that going active is the best way to go...


Advantages (if properly executed)/ disadvantages (if poorly executed) to an active system is that you can control each individual drivers phase, level, crossover frequency, ect... relative to each other in YOUR CAR. The passive crossovers are generic in that they only crossover the components. They do not take into account the response relationships of the individual drivers in YOUR CAR. Conversely they are somewhat plug and play, and it is harder to get them to sound terrible. Clear as mud ain't it?


----------



## LiquidClen (Dec 27, 2005)

lunchmoney said:


> to elaborate on the "easy" part: less wiring, less amp channels required, less electronic components... lots of less


Not sure if I agree with that lol.


----------



## jj_diamond (Oct 3, 2007)

MiniVanMan said:


> Depends on the frequency that the crossover is set at. Too far apart and you start to get lobing between the drivers, and other artifacts.
> 
> Understand something about active tuning. It's only as good as the processor that you're tuning with. If you're drivers aren't well matched to the capabilities of the processor, then you might have some problems. That's why processors like the PPI DCX-730 was so popular for the price. It allowed for crossover points in 1 hz increments, as well as EQ in 1 hz increments, with infinite Q adjustment (it seemed), and full time alignment. Most head units have very limited active tuning capability. Throw a Behringer DCX2496 on your speakers and if you can't get better sound than a passive crossover, then you don't know what you're doing.
> 
> ...


i understand what you are saying. but in your post the example of your active setup is "very acceptable for the drivers I selected for it.", not great.  

i'm not bashing active.

would you agree that getting a 2 way active setup to sound as great as a 4 way is much harder? even if you carefully picked the drivers.


----------



## michaelsil1 (May 24, 2007)

I love having an active system; however, there is a downside:


I'm fully responsible for all of the tuning which can be very frustrating.  

The cost of Amplification.  


The benefits are very rewarding:

I learn how to tune. 

I have full control over every aspect of my system (Okay so I'm a control freak). 

I end up with the sound I want (not someone else’s idea of how it should sound).


----------



## thylantyr (Jan 21, 2008)

I bailed from car audio long ago but audio is audio  Right now it's home
audio.

I'm still curious on car audio, what is the top products on the market for
car audio electronic crossovers, money is no object ?


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

flat out?... personal control. My music varies A LOT! I need the ability to change settings on the fly for that.

If it weren't for that, I might be able to get away with passive.


----------



## jj_diamond (Oct 3, 2007)

my music varies alot too. that shouldn't make a difference. that's what EQ and T/A are for.


----------



## smgreen20 (Oct 13, 2006)

I've been looking into making my own passive xovers for the past 2 months and there's hands down a clear choice and that would be active. 

There's a lot of reasons why. Phasing per 6dB of slope, the xover point changes as the impeadence rises and lowers, it adds distortion, it's power robbing and there's a tish load of math to determine xover points w/slopes if you chose to go passive. 

The designers of most comp sets have the all of the hard stuff for you. Some do sound great, others just do the job. MB Quarts Q series and the PG Elite passive crossovers are some of the best I'v ever heard.


----------



## tr0y_audi0 (Feb 13, 2007)

Pasive for me..
I run a shop I dont have time to spend tuning & getting everything just right..
Also keeps my car more of a bugget set for people to lison to & they may evan beable to pay for somthing like I got with out going crazy..

I tend to put lots/ wel maybe a fair amount of power on my fronts..
120ish + watts rms..
I know the pasive will eat some of the power but thats ok.
Also I realy realy liked my Alpine SPX-177r's
bi-amped they are wonderful..
the Arc XXK or Zapco's made them one of the best setups for front stage I'v ever had..very full, smooth & very alive... it was like having a band on the dash as i sat in a nice seat at the bar.. type thing...
Very cool..


----------



## tyroneshoes (Mar 21, 2006)

ZRide said:


> I was thinking of going active using my sr6500 set but want to keep using the passive xover that ships with the system so I think I will stick with that. GL.


With your set, I preferred using the passive.


----------



## 3.5max6spd (Jun 29, 2005)

I've lucked out where the system of speakers i've chosen and where i've placed my drivers to me sound perfectly linear, phase correct and play to the desired loudness I care for in my car with its supplied passive xover. I'm using less equipment than i have in years and invested into the system less, and i'm hearing more of the actual equipment used vs watering it down with dsp and fighting phase shifts that creep out somewhere in the volume scale. As a result, sound deadning and spot treating have a more rewarding effect than tinkering all the time IME. I'm not opposed to having the flexibility to tune, but when its good enough its time to sit back and enjoy the damn music. Its damn nearfield for crying out loud. Placement and side level will get you 95% of your staging, i can live without the other 5% for the sake of tonality. Oh and zero noise floor or ground loop issues are nice as well without being forced to use less than a handfull of decent equipment that will work.

Obviously this is not a good choice for the DIY'er that loves to tinker on the daily, or is constantly swapping different drivers and mating them to others.
I'm just at the point where those variables are not an issue to me and my current involvement in my car stereo has reached two things: insert the cd, and listen....that has brought alot of joy, with zero frustration 

To each his own.


----------



## jj_diamond (Oct 3, 2007)

manny, thanks for putting into words what i was having a hard time saying.


----------



## Oliver (Jun 25, 2007)

I concur on the MB Quarts


----------



## tyroneshoes (Mar 21, 2006)

Its location and set specific. Mid/low level comps dont really design their crossovers as speaker specific. The higher end models put thought and actual design into their crossovers.

Higher end and typically metal dome tweet comp sets in my experience sound better passive. If the speakers are close together.

Focal Utopia, qsds for example

Some passives are just very well made and not using them if you have them is kinda silly such as the seas ones. 

But the limitation is lack of tuning, if you have good speaker setting and car acoustics, youll have great sound using either. 

In my case, tweets up high and mids low in doors, I need active to make up for poor locations and to have proper time allignment.

If youre using kickpanels and have a good passive set, Id use the passive first.


----------



## ArcL100 (Jun 17, 2005)

Flexibility and cost. The ability to play with lots of different speakers and set-ups. I really doubt I'd ever be satisfied with the output of any existing passive 2-way set-up, and any real 3-way is what... $1k?

-aaron


----------



## MiniVanMan (Jun 28, 2005)

jj_diamond said:


> would you agree that getting a 2 way active setup to sound as great as a 4 way is much harder? even if you carefully picked the drivers.


As great as a 4-way? Are you saying a 4-way active front stage? To me that's absolutely ridiculous. 

A 3-way front stage is much harder to set up properly as opposed to a 2-way. Tuning is absolutely essential for a 3-way front stage, and for that I'd take active processing every time. Here's the problem though. There aren't many processors out there that can effectively handle a 3-way front stage with all the benefits of time alignment, multi-band EQ (per channel), and the flexibility of crossover points needed to really tune in your typical midrange. 

The amount of money required to do a 3-way active far exceeds what a 2-way does. It really comes from the cost of the processor itself. I rarely recommend 3-ways, and will never recommend a 3-way ran off of stock passives unless the manufacturer gives specific details on the crossover, with mounting locations, distances, etc. 

It's a lot harder to get a 3-way to sound good as opposed to a 2-way. When properly done, yes, a 3-way can sound quite a bit better than a 2-way. Doesn't mean that's necessarily the best option for everybody. 

Back on topic though. 

Looking at price, the cost of active vs. passive is relatively the same. There's no question you can get higher quality drivers for much less if you go active. You'll NEVER see me recommend a boxed component set, then say throw out the crossovers and run that set active. It's defeating the purpose IMO of why we DIY in the first place.

So the cost associated with going active is offset by the cost of inflated pre-boxed component set prices. Personally in the end, I prefer the active route because it gives me flexibility. I know I can achieve great results when I want to try new drivers. It allows me to play around. Passive doesn't give me that. But then again, like I said before when planning systems for friends and family (except my wife. She has to suffer through my obsession) I'll usually go the passive route for ease of use. However, most of these people try to stay as budget as possible, so a set of PG Rsd components usually fits the bill. If somebody gives me a budget of 2k. Well, you can damn well rest assured they're getting an active setup. In the end, you get more for less running active.


----------



## jj_diamond (Oct 3, 2007)

MiniVanMan said:


> As great as a 4-way? Are you saying a 4-way active front stage? To me that's absolutely ridiculous.
> 
> A 3-way front stage is much harder to set up properly as opposed to a 2-way. Tuning is absolutely essential for a 3-way front stage, and for that I'd take active processing every time. Here's the problem though. There aren't many processors out there that can effectively handle a 3-way front stage with all the benefits of time alignment, multi-band EQ (per channel), and the flexibility of crossover points needed to really tune in your typical midrange.
> 
> ...


i agree 100% with the highlighted part.


----------



## FoxPro5 (Feb 14, 2006)

I think someone should shoot Scott B at HAT an email and ask him why he offers matched-paired drivers with no passive crossovers. 

Then again, if you're paying for JM Labs or Hertz's R&D into a properly designed passive network for their drivers, why not use it? 

I asked this question on ECA a while ago and here's what some of the member/competitors had to say: http://www.elitecaraudio.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=130242


----------



## FoxPro5 (Feb 14, 2006)

Also shopping at Maidsound is not very fun....


----------



## jj_diamond (Oct 3, 2007)

although he does not _yet_ offer passives, he will guide you in the right direction as to materials and instructions to build one for your specific install.


----------



## 89grand (Nov 23, 2006)

I've never had a passive system that sounded as good as my last active setup, besides that, I want to be able to pick and choose, and change drivers at will. I went active with an a/d/s set too even though it came with pretty nice crossovers.

I doubt I'll ever buy a pre packaged component set ever again either.


----------



## michaelsil1 (May 24, 2007)

tyroneshoes said:


> Its location and set specific. Mid/low level comps dont really design their crossovers as speaker specific. The higher end models put thought and actual design into their crossovers.
> 
> Higher end and typically metal dome tweet comp sets in my experience sound better passive. If the speakers are close together.
> 
> ...


It's funny that you mentioned the MB Quart QSD's.

I had the QSD 216 (passive) for my front stage they were the reason I went active. This is my opinion only: I thought they crossed the 6.5" @ 2.5 KHz to high for it capability shouldn't have been more than 2 KHz. and the Tweeter was crossed to low (I felt it had harmonic distortion crossed @ 2.5 KHz).


This wasn't an issue at lower volumes, but became very apparent at high volume.


----------



## Abmolech (Nov 2, 2006)

> I'm still curious on car audio, what is the top products on the market for
> car audio electronic crossovers, money is no object ?


car computer



some questions for you.
Is there anything the passive crossover can do that an active cannot?

(Be careful Zobel networks don't offer anything that a decent power amplifier cannot do)


Point
Actives offer flexibilty, less resistace, and better use of the avialable power.

After all a passive crosover is simply a dedicated EQ (filter) after the power amplifier. Wereas, the active crossover is a flexible filter before the power amplifier.
I haven't noticed anyone silly enough to suggest passive sound better than actives, however if you think this, please don't use your EQ in a car, it IS an ACTIVE filter.

POINT
If your using an EQ, your already using an active filter.


----------



## jj_diamond (Oct 3, 2007)

michaelsil1 said:


> It's funny that you mentioned the MB Quart QSD's.
> 
> I had the QSD 216 (passive) for my front stage they were the reason I went active. This is my opinion only: I thought they crossed the 6.5" @ 2.5 KHz to high for it capability shouldn't have been more than 2 KHz. and the Tweeter was crossed to low (I felt it had harmonic distortion crossed @ 2.5 KHz).
> 
> ...


high volume = distortion, in most cases.


----------



## MiniVanMan (Jun 28, 2005)

Abmolech said:


> some questions for you.
> Is there anything the passive crossover can do that an active cannot?


Yes, you can run two drivers off of one channel of amplification. The question is though... at what cost?

I know your stance on the power robbing characteristics of a passive, but am yet unconvinced they're as large (audibly) as they are on paper. Not saying it doesn't exist because it surely does. A well built passive, with nice beefy inductors will rob much less power than your typical 3"x5" crossover that comes with many component sets. So that needs to be taken into account.

However, that's my only argument, and it's one I only know of due to conversations elsewhere  

To play devil's advocate here, it can be argued that a passive crossover will induce less noise (noise floor will be lower) than an active crossover (run of the mill processor). However, when choosing components for your passive you need to take into consideration skin effect, hysteresis, resistance and other artifacts that can affect the quality of the signal passing through the network. To build a passive crossover using components that don't induce those artifacts will run you a pretty penny. I have yet to see a crossover that uses a copper foil, 12 or 14 gauge inductor. I'd love for somebody to let me know if there are any out there that actually do at any price. I haven't had a chance to see the Genesis crossover, and admittedly haven't broken open to many high end crossovers (beyond Dyn, Lotus, etc).

In the end, the only benefit to a passive crossover is ease of use. Plain and simple. There is no way to argue that a passive crossover can add some magical, mystical sound quality to a set of drivers that you can't achieve with an active processor. Just like speaker wire, amplifiers, etc, etc, etc, the biggest proponents of any particular aspect, and usage of an overly expensive item are the people trying to sell it.


----------



## B&K (Sep 20, 2005)

Amazing to me, I used to love this site  So many people he proponents of active setups, but none speaking up other than MVM. To me a non-custom passive is pretty useless, even with simple processing on a headunit you can easily surpass the integration you'd get with an off the shelf passive set. In particular for sets in the under $300 range which most people on here would be interested in.

I feel this is similar to the damn rear fill folks, just because you haven't heard a set of fronts that proves rears to be useless doesn't mean it is the right choice. In this case, just since you have had active integration issues does not mean they aren't capable of being far superior to passive. After all if your active setup doesn't turn out, it is only the user/installer you can blame.


----------



## smgreen20 (Oct 13, 2006)

michaelsil1 said:


> It's funny that you mentioned the MB Quart QSD's.
> 
> I had the QSD 216 (passive) for my front stage they were the reason I went active. This is my opinion only: I thought they crossed the 6.5" @ 2.5 KHz to high for it capability shouldn't have been more than 2 KHz. and the Tweeter was crossed to low (I felt it had harmonic distortion crossed @ 2.5 KHz).
> 
> ...


Jeff Smith informed me a few years back that MBQ lowered the xover point to help reduce the "harshness" that the tweets before them had. What you heard might've been a effect to that.


----------



## smgreen20 (Oct 13, 2006)

On another note, in my research I've seen it's about 5% power loss for every 6dB the xover slope is. All the extra parts parts take yet more power away.

100w per side
6dB = 95w
12dB= 90w
18dB= 85w
24dB= 80w

You get the picture.


----------



## michaelsil1 (May 24, 2007)

smgreen20 said:


> Jeff Smith informed me a few years back that MBQ lowered the xover point to help reduce the "harshness" that the tweets before them had. What you heard might've been a effect to that.


The QTD 25 Tweeter Frequency response is 3.2 KHz that's what's 
used in the QSD 216 Component set.

http://www.mbquart.com/all/downloads/datenblaetter/qtd_25.pdf

I would think crossing them @ 2.5 KHz 18db would make them sound nasty.


----------



## Dr.Telepathy SQ (Nov 17, 2007)

Anyone into cheap thrills?????? 

Pick up a set of the Cadence 6.5" KIT comps for $75 shipped on ebay.

Dump the passives the come with it(hey, the set only cost $60 bucks, so I don't feel bad about dumping the passives..

Run the set active.......Some very nice cheap fun....VERY NICE. They are good with passives, but ran active, my-my....and they are easy drivers to work with actively as well.


----------



## michaelsil1 (May 24, 2007)

jj_diamond said:


> high volume = distortion, in most cases.


I totally agree.


----------



## Dillyyo (Feb 15, 2008)

MiniVanMan said:


> Depends on the frequency that the crossover is set at. Too far apart and you start to get lobing between the drivers, and other artifacts.
> 
> Understand something about active tuning. It's only as good as the processor that you're tuning with. If you're drivers aren't well matched to the capabilities of the processor, then you might have some problems. That's why processors like the PPI DCX-730 was so popular for the price. It allowed for crossover points in 1 hz increments, as well as EQ in 1 hz increments, with infinite Q adjustment (it seemed), and full time alignment. Most head units have very limited active tuning capability. Throw a Behringer DCX2496 on your speakers and if you can't get better sound than a passive crossover, then you don't know what you're doing.
> 
> ...


I concur. In essence, with all other factors being the same (no limitations due to space, monies etc) an enthusiast who knows how to PROPERLY tune a vehicle will choose an active setup before a passive. Specifically for the reasons stated above, passives are designed as a blanket , "overall" good application. But in car audio, very seldom do all the users use the same locations and this is where active manipulation of crossover points can make your system go from sounding good to really good. IMHO, people who use actives and say they can't get anywhere with the tweaking probably aren't experienced enough to take on that kind of en devour.


----------



## Dillyyo (Feb 15, 2008)

bikinpunk said:


> flat out?... personal control. My music varies A LOT! I need the ability to change settings on the fly for that.
> 
> If it weren't for that, I might be able to get away with passive.


Sorry if I am misunderstanding you, but what does variance in music have to do with active setup with crossovers?! The type of music you are playing should have no bearing on what your crossover structure is like. Please elaborate.


----------



## Dr.Telepathy SQ (Nov 17, 2007)

Active is for the brave, willing, and who wants the best out of their drivers.

With that said, going active, you'll figure out why dumping more than $300 for comp sets is just plain crazy. 

I've heard some of the best things over the years that didn't cost a lot. 

Like today, I played with the Cadence $75 comp set myself today, and I'm in love. 

PG's 65cs I play with today as well active.....
I'm as happy as a jr high boy who walked into the girls locker room....

Under $100, I have no sad feelings about dumping the 3x5 crossover. 

Like minivan man stated, to make a really nice passive crossover, it takes big money. In many ways, runing active is cheaper than using the passives. Think about it in the whole picture mode and you will see my point.

If you ever get into home audio, you will understand.


----------



## Bluto Blutarsky (Apr 1, 2007)

Dillyyo said:


> I concur. In essence, with all other factors being the same (no limitations due to space, monies etc) an enthusiast who knows how to PROPERLY tune a vehicle will choose an active setup before a passive. Specifically for the reasons stated above, passives are designed as a blanket , "overall" good application. But in car audio, very seldom do all the users use the same locations and this is where active manipulation of crossover points can make your system go from sounding good to really good. IMHO, people who use actives and say they can't get anywhere with the tweaking probably aren't experienced enough to take on that kind of en devour.


 That's endeavor school master.


----------



## grampi (Jun 29, 2007)

LiquidClen said:


> I am wondering why some people prefer passive. To me the only advantage is you don't have to tune. But finding mounting points for crossovers, as well as the lack of ability to tweak the sound to your liking coupled with the fact that 880's and 8053's can me had for ridiculously cheap these-days confuses me as to why you would prefer passive


I don't prefer passive, but I go that route because I can power my entire system with a single 4 channel amp. Can't do that active.


----------



## Bluto Blutarsky (Apr 1, 2007)

grampi said:


> I don't prefer passive, but I go that route because I can power my entire system with a single 4 channel amp. Can't do that active.


 I have no shortage of amplifier channels yet choose to go passive.


----------



## Dillyyo (Feb 15, 2008)

Bluto Blutarsky said:


> That's endeavor school master.


Please don't tell me this forum has a grammar and spelling police?!?! I guess I clicked on the wrong one by mistake when the spell check flagged it, but thanks for the critical feedback!


----------



## Bluto Blutarsky (Apr 1, 2007)

Dillyyo said:


> Please don't tell me this forum has a grammar and spelling police?!?! I guess I clicked on the wrong one by mistake when the spell check flagged it, but thanks for the critical feedback!


 You are welcome and thanks for informing me that people that are experienced choose active.


----------



## jj_diamond (Oct 3, 2007)

Dillyyo said:


> I concur. In essence, with all other factors being the same (no limitations due to space, monies etc) an enthusiast who knows how to PROPERLY tune a vehicle will choose an active setup before a passive. Specifically for the reasons stated above, passives are designed as a blanket , "overall" good application. But in car audio, very seldom do all the users use the same locations and this is where active manipulation of crossover points can make your system go from sounding good to really good. *IMHO, people who use actives and say they can't get anywhere with the tweaking probably aren't experienced enough to take on that kind of en devour.*


good to know i'm not experienced enough to take on that endeavour, which i have. yet i'm willing to bet my passive setup sounds better than alot of active setups.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

Dillyyo said:


> Sorry if I am misunderstanding you, but what does variance in music have to do with active setup with crossovers?! The type of music you are playing should have no bearing on what your crossover structure is like. Please elaborate.


Some of my music is midbass intensive, some is not. Some has bloated bass (rap) some does not. I can change my settings with the music. That's a prime example of the benefit I get out of going active. 

When you say "active" you aren't necessarily referring to EQ as alot of people take it. Active is simply active x-over (I'm sure you know this; just making my point)... so I choose active because I can fluctuate my x-overs depending on what music I'm listening to and how loud I'm listening. 

If that's wrong, oh well.


----------



## MiniVanMan (Jun 28, 2005)

jj_diamond said:


> good to know i'm not experienced enough to take on that endeavour, which i have. yet i'm willing to bet my passive setup sounds better than alot of active setups.


I'm willing to bet I can take your drivers, and run them active and get better results than your passives


----------



## jj_diamond (Oct 3, 2007)

MiniVanMan said:


> I'm willing to bet I can take your drivers, and run them active and get better results than your passives


i've tried that. sounds like something's missing.


----------



## Fellippe (Sep 15, 2006)

Main advantage of passive over active from a SQ point of view is COHERENCE....simplicity, cost, etc. are others.

I recommend active over passive mostly in situations when you intend to go all out and have the skill/dedication to make it work. In 95% of all scenarios, a perfect active setup will outperform a perfect passive setup, while still maintaining good coherence. There have been certain speakers where better results have been attained with passives. 

Also, it's probably preferable if you're running low to mid end amps....to get the most out of them. When you run high end amps and hear the sound through passive crossovers, you'll be quite hesitant to abandon it and go active. 

Another situation where active tends to help is integrating a horn with a woofer in a 2 way setup.....where the horn has a much higher sensitivity than the woofer, and balancing the frequency response is harder.


----------



## jj_diamond (Oct 3, 2007)

Fellippe said:


> Main advantage of passive over active from a SQ point of view is COHERENCE....simplicity, cost, etc. are others.
> 
> I recommend active over passive mostly in situations when you intend to go all out and have the skill/dedication to make it work. In 95% of all scenarios, a perfect active setup will outperform a perfect passive setup, while still maintaining good coherence. There have been certain speakers where better results have been attained with passives.
> 
> ...


that's my problem right there i guess.


----------



## npdang (Jul 29, 2005)

Everytime one of these threads comes up, I see that alot of people are missing the point. The goal of a crossover is to limit a driver from playing outside of it's ideal range, and to transition from driver to driver smoothly. You can execute this with either a passive or an active, and at the end of the day the most important thing is how well you've achieved these 2 goals not how you go about it.

That being said, some people have an easier time using a manufacturer supplied crossover, while others achieve better results tuning their own. Now if it does come down to tuning your own, I'm going to bet 100% of the people here would agree that active is hands down easier to implement than a passive.


----------



## jj_diamond (Oct 3, 2007)

99%


----------



## Antiwhy (Dec 20, 2007)

Also, it's probably preferable if you're running low to mid end amps....to get the most out of them. When you run high end amps and hear the sound through passive crossovers, you'll be quite hesitant to abandon it and go active. 

What you are saying is entry level amps aren't recommended for an active setup?I plan to use my US amps IS series and have heard of noise issues.TY


----------



## 89grand (Nov 23, 2006)

Antiwhy said:


> Also, it's probably preferable if you're running low to mid end amps....to get the most out of them. When you run high end amps and hear the sound through passive crossovers, you'll be quite hesitant to abandon it and go active.


I don't get the logic here.

Why would anyone only want to run active with low to mid level gear? That makes no sense to me. I choose active for numerous reasons, and my amps aren't one of the reasons.


----------



## Antiwhy (Dec 20, 2007)

I meant to quote Fellippe's statement,I really don't understand the logic either that's why I asked the question.


----------



## 89grand (Nov 23, 2006)

Antiwhy said:


> Also, it's probably preferable if you're running low to mid end amps....to get the most out of them. When you run high end amps and hear the sound through passive crossovers, you'll be quite hesitant to abandon it and go active.
> 
> What you are saying is entry level amps aren't recommended for an active setup?I plan to use my US amps IS series and have heard of noise issues.TY


No, I'm saying the amplifier plays no part when deciding on going active or not. It's the least important part of the equation.

OK, I see what's going on. At first I thought it was your statement.


----------



## MiniVanMan (Jun 28, 2005)

Fellippe said:


> Main advantage of passive over active from a SQ point of view is COHERENCE....simplicity, cost, etc. are others.
> 
> I recommend active over passive mostly in situations when you intend to go all out and have the skill/dedication to make it work. In 95% of all scenarios, a perfect active setup will outperform a perfect passive setup, while still maintaining good coherence. There have been certain speakers where better results have been attained with passives.
> 
> ...


"Coherence"??

Honestly we're starting to tread into the area of snake oil here. Please explain the properties of a passive crossover that create coherence, and what active processors lack that eliminates coherence. 

How a watt from a high end amplifier magically gets transformed by a passive crossover as opposed to a cheaper watt is beyond me. Also, somehow that same high end watt prefers a clunky resistive network in it's path instead of a straight shot into the speaker. 

WOW!!! And I mean that with all sarcasm intended. That's not even opinion. I have no idea how you can even quantify a statement like that. 

Again, I never said you can't achieve good results with passive crossover. But come on guys, you're really coming out of left field, and you're coming from there carrying snake oil. 

Nobody that is arguing passive being better has yet to come up with anything other than "my set sounds good with it's passive". I've never said it doesn't, but you're all really missing the point.


----------



## MiniVanMan (Jun 28, 2005)

jj_diamond said:


> 99%


So, you could build your own passive to mimic the capabilities of an active crossover in your car using DIY drivers? I know you're being sarcastic, but this passive crossover love is getting out of hand. 

That's what npdang is eluding to. Taking raw drivers and making them work in your car. That's what this site was founded on.


----------



## bretti_kivi (Dec 3, 2007)

.... and using stuff like this room correction / FIR / processing with Active is pretty much a given, right? I'm trying to understand just how difficult it would be to tune a real 2 or 3 way active setup and am under the impression that having a carputer for head unit with some "processing" (oversimplification, I know) is essentially as good as it's going to get for an active source, right? 

If I go passive, say with a DLS R6A, then i'm relying on the ears of the engineeer that tuned the set to want the same as I do. Whereas if *I* want softer treble, then I either have to play with gain or hope that he thought about that option. Fully active I can choose the drivers I want anyway. Wherever they are aimed at, home or car, they may or may not work.

Bret


----------



## dbest2918 (Dec 28, 2007)

When I read some of the articles on setting up and tuning an active system my limited understanding of the benefits were:

*Phase control over the individual drivers "in your specific application" between the pairs, tweeter pair and mid pair.
*Phase control over the drivers as a system "in your specific application" between tweeters and mids.
*Time alignment of the individual drivers "in your specific application" including tweeters to mids, not just left to right.
*Variable crossover control "in your specific application" between tweeters, mids and subs.
*Level control for each individual driver "in your specific application".

My, again limited, uderstanding is that the phase relationship, time alignment, crossover points and levels for the drivers all interact with "your specific application". In other words, if the best tuner in the world, set up equipment, regardless of price, and optimize all of the above parameters for a Ford F150 it will sound extremely good SQ wise. Take the exact same equipment with the exact same settings for all of the above mentioned parameters and install it in a Chevy Corvette and?

The benefit of active is control over these interactive parameters "in your specific application".

I would love to learn more on this. Please chime in with any other info that I may have overlooked or have dead ass wrong.


----------



## Rudeboy (Oct 16, 2005)

bretti_kivi said:


> If I go passive, say with a DLS R6A, then i'm relying on the ears of the engineeer that tuned the set to want the same as I do. Whereas if *I* want softer treble, then I either have to play with gain or hope that he thought about that option. Fully active I can choose the drivers I want anyway. Wherever they are aimed at, home or car, they may or may not work.
> Bret


and that the acoustics of your vehicle match those for which the crossover was designed.


----------



## khail19 (Oct 27, 2006)

Rudeboy said:


> and that the acoustics of your vehicle match those for which the crossover was designed.


Exactly, and not only vehicle acoustics. In any specific install, driver placement and the distance between your mid and tweet will likely vary from how the passive crossover was designed. Just being able to adjust the tweeter level a few db isn't always enough adjustment. And very, very few passive sets give you any more adjustment than that.

There's really no end to this argument. Some people believe that high end amps sound better. Some people believe that certain passive crossovers have some magic capability that cannot be reproduced with active crossovers. Some people believe that anything done passively can be recreated actively as well. To me the real benefit in active is the tuning flexibility, and the ability to swap drivers without having to redesign a passive crossover.


----------



## jj_diamond (Oct 3, 2007)

MiniVanMan said:


> So, you could build your own passive to mimic the capabilities of an active crossover in your car using DIY drivers? I know you're being sarcastic, but this passive crossover love is getting out of hand.
> 
> That's what npdang is eluding to. *Taking raw drivers and making them work in your car. That's what this site was founded on*.


i tried that and was very unhappy with the results. maybe this forum isn't for me since i don't have the experience most of you have and can't explain myself. i know what sounds good and what doesn't.


----------



## lunchmoney (Dec 27, 2007)

khail19 said:


> Some people believe that certain passive crossovers have some magic capability that cannot be reproduced with active crossovers.


This statement is what this discussion keeps swirling around, and no one has backed it up with anything.

No one has yet adequately explained HOW or WHY a passive might sound better. 

If the only reason is because the tuner isn't skilled enough, that seems like a weak reason.


----------



## jj_diamond (Oct 3, 2007)

because everyone wants to be right. and no one wants to question the guru's. how some of you come on here, a DIY forum and say stuff like 100% of the people agree this is the best way. _what_ever dude. i tried to explain myself in post #9. again i know what sounds good not what looks good on paper.


----------



## cheesehead (Mar 20, 2007)

What do YOU prefer? Active or Passive is just 2 different ways of setting up your system. Does one perform better than the other? Well as you have seen that depends on who you are asking! It's not about what works best for everybody. It's about what sounds the BEST for you. If passive works best for you and you are happy.... enjoy! If you are not satisfied with passive then experiment with other options. You are the person who is going to be listening to the system. You need to be happy with the sound regardless of what someone else thinks. There are a lot of kids running around with systems they bought off of a walmart shelve and are completely happy! Enjoy what sounds good to you!


----------



## lunchmoney (Dec 27, 2007)

jj_diamond said:


> because everyone wants to be right. and no one wants to question the guru's. how some of you come on here, a DIY forum and say stuff like 100% of the people agree this is the best way. _what_ever dude. i tried to explain myself in post #9. again i know what sounds good not what looks good on paper.


Hey dude, wasn't trying to flame you with my comment there... sorry it came off that way... apologies  

I was just trying to get the conversation to focus back on how and why a passive might sound better... not because I'm following the masses and blindly doubting it, but because I'm very curious... 

What, if any, are the principles at work that might make a passive crossover sound better? What is a passive crossover doing that an active setup can't do, or can't do as well?


----------



## grampi (Jun 29, 2007)

I've actually used both. Active gives you a bit more flexibility, but I've honestly had passive systems that sounded just as good or even better. I think your system's overall SQ has a lot more to do with other aspects of your system (i.e. speaker quality, speaker placement, HU sound processing, whether or not your amp is providing clean power, etc.) than it does with whether your running active or passive.


----------



## 3.5max6spd (Jun 29, 2005)

lunchmoney said:


> Hey dude, wasn't trying to flame you with my comment there... sorry it came off that way... apologies
> 
> I was just trying to get the conversation to focus back on how and why a passive might sound better... not because I'm following the masses and blindly doubting it, but because I'm very curious...
> 
> What, if any, are the principles at work that might make a passive crossover sound better? What is a passive crossover doing that an active setup can't do, or can't do as well?


Its a nice copout to judge those that are happy with their results with a custom passive designed around their family of drivers, and claim its because of their lack of tuning experience. Couldn't it be because of their install/placement?


Passive either works or doesnt for someone in the car. I've been doing and tuning active systems for a good 4-5 yrs straight. Heck i even have friends running active with spare drivers i have laying around i piece for them. Active has not been 'discouraging' IME, because when I used it I NEEDED THE ACTIVE CONTROL, and i achieved the results necesary to make it work together.

Theres no 'magic', it just works- couldnt really fit on a piece of paper the last year how many people in our DIY/ECA would sit on my drivers seat with a smile on their face and note staging cues and image to then find out I'm not using DSP Was it perfect for everyone? I'm sure not, but as good as it gets for me and it where it may not have been technically the best it sure compensated tonally where nit sounded more realistic. Guys are busy in their cars tuning, while I just change CD's 
EVERYONE I've come across believes they know how to tune their active setup, and heck i bet it sounds good- to tHEM.

You can chose to be obcessive compulsive or just accept it-that once you've heard with your own ears what you are more than satified with in your car that the difference by going active would not justify the complexity of more amplification, wiring, more processing ... How would I know what works best for me? Oh, I know...I own my car, the same one thats been though endless active configurations since 2002. A few active systems and its no rocket science to know the xover points that work well for tweet/midrange/bass driver in their respective placement...

Does a passive work for those dropping drivers where its easy for them? Likely not. I dont have my tweeters up on a'pillar firing off the worst reflective surfaces in the car, or the common door panel flush mount, a midrange firing at me ear level or a midbass massaging me from the side of my ribcage or under my seat....nor am i trying to configure unrelated drivers varying in sensitivity ALL spread out from each other. I actually got dirty and placed my drivers as far forward as it would allow looking clean, avoiding reflections or great pathlength differences between them. THey are all placed off axis as close to array on an even plane achieveable. Making kicks wasnt THAT hard to be honest, but I notice its more than some people are willing to do. They rather buy more amplifiers and run more wire and throw in a fancy processor...heck even induce noise floor into their system than to adress a more ideal speaker placement for their vehicles acoustics.

The argument isnt passive vs active here- its....


Install/speaker placement in a car > than a bandaid.


----------



## dbest2918 (Dec 28, 2007)

dbest2918 said:


> When I read some of the articles on setting up and tuning an active system my limited understanding of the benefits were:
> 
> *Phase control over the individual drivers "in your specific application" between the pairs, tweeter pair and mid pair.
> *Phase control over the drivers as a system "in your specific application" between tweeters and mids.
> ...


This could turn into an excellent test/validation of some of the principles that this forum is know for. To do this with some quantifiable validation we start with a good set of mid level $400-$600 component speakers with a good passive crossover. Rainbow, Image dynamics, Dynaudio, ect... Drive them with what would be considered a typical source unit and amplifier. As an example the Alpine 9887 h/u and a Cadence amplifier. Install these in a vehicle doesn't really matter which. Using the component speakers with their passive crossover networks optimize the system and take measurements. Remove said passive crossovers, mount the tweeters anywhere you want, again optimize the system using the active parameter controls and remeasure. Should yield some type of measurable differences?

What would be your guess as to the outcome? Using a pc based measurement system to measure and optimize both setups. Are we likely to see any benefits of running active vs. passive with the same exact components, with the exact same source units, in the exact same vehicle. My guess would be the active system can be further optimized for any vehicle utilizing the proper tools.


----------



## jj_diamond (Oct 3, 2007)

....what the hell was that?

oh yeah, that damn 100% flying out the window again.

thanks manny.  



*note
and i bet it has nothing to do with the fact that between my HU and *ONE* amp i don't hear more than .013%THD.


----------



## jj_diamond (Oct 3, 2007)

dbest2918 said:


> This could turn into an excellent test/validation of some of the principles that this forum is know for. To do this with some quantifiable validation we start with a good set of mid level $400-$600 component speakers with a good passive crossover. Rainbow, Image dynamics, Dynaudio, ect... Drive them with what would be considered a typical source unit and amplifier. As an example the Alpine 9887 h/u and a Cadence amplifier. Install these in a vehicle doesn't really matter which. Using the component speakers with their passive crossover networks optimize the system and take measurements. Remove said passive crossovers, mount the tweeters anywhere you want, again optimize the system using the active parameter controls and remeasure. Should yield some type of measurable differences?
> 
> *What would be your guess as to the outcome? Using a pc based measurement system to measure and optimize both setups.* Are we likely to see any benefits of running active vs. passive with the same exact components, with the exact same source units, in the exact same vehicle. My guess would be the active system can be further optimized for any vehicle utilizing the proper tools.


is the pc the one thats going to be listening to the music or your ears?

i can bet too................101% percent of you active users rather have processed cheese than natural cheese.


----------



## 3.5max6spd (Jun 29, 2005)

jj_diamond said:


> is the pc the one thats going to be listening to the music or your ears?


No dummy, its going to sit upright in the drivers seat bobbing it head with its long or short legs causing difractions just like in real world!


----------



## jj_diamond (Oct 3, 2007)

duh, my bad.


----------



## dbest2918 (Dec 28, 2007)

jj_diamond said:


> is the pc the one thats going to be listening to the music or your ears?


You make an excellent point. The owner of said gear and said vehicle is the one that determines what type of sound they are looking for. Some may want a smooth and laid back upper end, while others may prefer just the opposite. Would it be possible for said owner to tailor a system to his/her tastes, with xys system in xyz car?

I would think that you could tune it for "your" ears. Probably easier to get it to sound "right" to "your" ears with the availability to place the tweeters in what "your" ears tell you is an optimum spot for "your" vehicle.
Probably easier to get it to sound "right" to "your" ears with the availability of phase control for each individual driver based on the interaction between them in "your" vehicle.
Probably easier to get it to sound "right" to "your" ears with the availability of an adjustable crossover point to optimize the drivers in "your" vehicle.

All the "your" and "right" in quotes is not to flame your initial statement, but to agree with your observation that it is the owners ears that in the end are the final judge of a systems quality.


----------



## jj_diamond (Oct 3, 2007)

dbest2918 said:


> You make an excellent point. The owner of said gear and said vehicle is the one that determines what type of sound they are looking for. Some may want a smooth and laid back upper end, while others may prefer just the opposite. *Would it be possible for said owner to tailor a system to his/her tastes, with xys system in xyz car?*
> 
> *I would think that you could tune it for "your" ears. Probably easier to get it to sound "right" to "your" ears with the availability to place the tweeters in what "your" ears tell you is an optimum spot for "your" vehicle.*
> *Probably easier to get it to sound "right" to "your" ears with the availability of phase control for each individual driver based on the interaction between them in "your" vehicle.*
> ...


yes.

yes and no. i'm not arguing that an active setup is bad. but at what expense is it easier? this is a very subjective argument. if active works for you go on with your badself. if you understand how well passive can work go on with your badself.

communism looks peachy on paper. does it work?


----------



## Oliver (Jun 25, 2007)

Just use the right tool for the right job  

Set it -n- forget it [maybe passive is the tool of choice ].

Tweak -n- tune , definately active [ as you try to extend the limits of your drivers ]


----------



## dbest2918 (Dec 28, 2007)

jj_diamond said:


> yes.
> 
> yes and no. i'm not arguing that an active setup is bad. but at what expense is it easier? this is a very subjective argument. if active works for you go on with your badself. if you understand how well passive can work go on with your badself.
> 
> communism looks peachy on paper. does it work?


Agreed, it's your cash, do what makes you happy. I would try hard not to be as arrogant as to state what is better for someone else. Merely state the options and differences between them. Maybe go as far as IMHO if I were to have the same decisions what would I do.

As far as politics goes I'm not absolutely sure what we are living in.
From Wikipedia;

Totalitarian democracy is a term made famous by Israeli historian J. L. Talmon to refer to a system of government in which lawfully elected representatives maintain the integrity of a nation state whose citizens, while granted the right to vote, have little or no participation in the decision-making process of the government. The phrase had previously been used by Bertrand de Jouvenel and E.H. Carr.

Or maybe;

Historically, corporatism or corporativism (Italian: corporativismo) refers to a political or economic system in which power is given to civic assemblies that represent economic, industrial, agrarian, social, cultural, and professional groups. These civic assemblies are known as corporations (not necessarily the business model known as a 'corporation', though such businesses are not excluded from the definition either). Corporations are unelected bodies with an internal hierarchy; their purpose is to exert control over the social and economic life of their respective areas. Thus, for example, a steel corporation would be a cartel composed of all the business leaders in the steel industry, coming together to discuss a common policy on prices and wages. When the political and economic power of a country rests in the hands of such groups, then a corporatist system is in place.
The word "corporatism" is derived from the Latin word for body, corpus. This meaning was not connected with the specific notion of a business corporation, but rather a general reference to anything collected as a body. Its usage reflects medieval European concepts of a whole society in which the various components - e.g., guilds, universities, monasteries, the various estates, etc. - each play a part in the life of the society, just as the various parts of the body serve specific roles in the life of a body. According to various theorists, corporatism was an attempt to create a modern version of feudalism by merging the "corporate" interests with those of the state.

Hard to tell sometimes.


----------



## jj_diamond (Oct 3, 2007)

i appologize if *-> *_I _*<- *came off as arrogant if at anytime i "suggested" what was better for someone else. those weren't my intentions. i appreciate you pointing that out to me.


----------



## MiniVanMan (Jun 28, 2005)

My whole rant started when people started eluding to, and outright saying that passives "sound" better than active. I've already stated the pros and cons of each, and sound quality was never the question.

Npdang tried to say it as well, but was pretty much ignored as well.

So, let me be a little more clear. 

If you take a woofer that can be optimally low passed at 3000 hz, will it sound better crossed over with an active crossover, or a passive crossover?

There have been arguments here that the passive crossover will sound better when all else is equal. I've wanted that quantified and nobody has stepped up. 

Manny is pretty spot on. It's very install and application dependent on which will work best for you. I've never disagreed with that. 

"My car sounds very good using the supplied passive crossovers", is a fine statement. 

"My car sounds very good using the supplied crossover, and sounds better than an active processor" needs to be quantified. What is the magical property of the passive crossover that it somehow adds to the music what an active processor can't.

We'll keep going in circles until somebody answers this. "It just sounds better" is a bunch of crap, and is just being stubborn. So, will somebody please step up.

I can design a passive, and do for home audio loudspeakers. I'm not anti-passive. However, at no point in designing a passive crossover have I said, "damn" this crossover will sure add some coherence, detail, and dynamics to my music. The sound quality will be so much better than those silly people that run their loudspeakers actively".


----------



## dbest2918 (Dec 28, 2007)

jj_diamond said:


> i appologize if *-> *_I _*<- *came off as arrogant if at anytime i "suggested" what was better for someone else. those weren't my intentions. i appreciate you pointing that out to me.


Sorry, but the arrogant comment was directed towards me and not you. I may get a little exuberant with this hobby since I am in the process of piecing together a brand new system. I try to be careful with my suggestions and hope that I don't come off as arrogant.


----------



## 89grand (Nov 23, 2006)

I think the major point the pro active people are trying to make, myself included is that there doesn't seem to be anything a passive set can do, that can't be duplicated with an active crossover and eq, but there are many things an active setup can do that a passive can't.

The pros to active I see are these:
1. Continuously variable crossover points, including under laps or over laps.
2. Continuously variable level control between the driver.
3. The ability to change drivers at will without concern for crossover compatibility.
4. T/A for each driver separately.
5. Phase adjustment for each driver separately on the fly, at least with my 880.

Now if a passive crossover has a set point of 3.5khz and you set the tweeter level to -3db, I can easily due the same thing with an active setup, but try doing all the things I mentioned above with a passive set.


----------



## dbest2918 (Dec 28, 2007)

89grand said:


> I think the major point the pro active people are trying to make, myself included is that there doesn't seem to be anything a passive set can do, that can't be duplicated with an active crossover and eq, but there are many things an active setup can do that a passive can't.
> 
> The pros to active I see are these:
> 1. Continuously variable crossover points, including under laps or over laps.
> ...


That's how I see it, uhm I mean hear it.

I guess I would rather be "pro active" than "passive aggressive"!


----------



## 3.5max6spd (Jun 29, 2005)

dbest2918 said:


> I guess I would rather be "pro active" than "passive aggressive"!


Great one!


----------



## Fast1one (Apr 6, 2007)

MiniVanMan said:


> My whole rant started when people started eluding to, and outright saying that passives "sound" better than active. I've already stated the pros and cons of each, and sound quality was never the question.
> 
> Npdang tried to say it as well, but was pretty much ignored as well.
> 
> ...


BIG x2...

It could be coloration by components used in the passives, but is it placebo or REAL??? It is a difficult question to answer...

Sound wise I think you, 3.5max6spd and Npdang are right on the money, and anyone reading this thread should read their posts very thoroughly...Otherwise its just a preference AKA *cough* laziness...

I can understand the money aspect, but there is no excuse for not "being experienced enough". If you are running active for the first time or have it once or twice, go out there and GET YOUR HANDS DIRTY. Play with speaker placement, crossover points, phase, etc. and GAIN experience!!!

Cheers!

-Serg

Edit: Just to add some food for thought, no one can really tell you what sounds best in your situation. I tried asking a question not too long ago here and at maxima.org about speaker placement and then realized that I just have to go out and do it. I was using 3 inch speakers so I stuck them in coffee cups (woot!), sealed them, and played with every possible placement imaginable...finally found something that had the tonality and imaging I wanted IN STOCK FORM (no processing yet except gain adjustment). This gives you a concrete foundation so you its easier to tweak right off the bat...

I read a comment earlier, placement is 95% of the install or something like that. It really is vital, and guess what, the best place for my midranges was NOT the kicks


----------



## Oliver (Jun 25, 2007)

Fast1one said:


> BIG x2...
> 
> It could be coloration by components used in the passives, but is it placebo or REAL??? It is a difficult question to answer...
> 
> ...


Sweet, that is the essence of DIYMA


----------



## jj_diamond (Oct 3, 2007)

try this....

take one amp and a set of 6x9's. run it full range. then run it by setting the crossovers on the amp acording to the specs of the 6x9's. which one do you say sounds better at moderate listening levels? don't take it out of context with this driver vs that driver and such. which sounds better?

i'm not arguing that passive is better than active. but most people don't use active properly. *if you can make a 2way sound better active than passive at the same cost more power to you.*  

i apparently don't have a clue what sounds good so this is my last post in this thread. if you have any questions feel free to PM me about it. i'll make a note for the next time i go to a live concert to try and locate where all the frequencies are crossed over. including the guy coughing next to me and the drunk girl screaming in front of me. i'll try and be more acurate in my daily routines.

gee, imagine how nice it would be talking to someone who's voice was crossed over properly. wait, honda's got that covered with robots.

you can call me names all you want and try and be slick about it, doesn't bother me one bit. i can tell you are very open minded with a name like "dbest..."


----------



## Dillyyo (Feb 15, 2008)

bikinpunk said:


> Some of my music is midbass intensive, some is not. Some has bloated bass (rap) some does not. I can change my settings with the music. That's a prime example of the benefit I get out of going active.
> 
> When you say "active" you aren't necessarily referring to EQ as alot of people take it. Active is simply active x-over (I'm sure you know this; just making my point)... so I choose active because I can fluctuate my x-overs depending on what music I'm listening to and how loud I'm listening.
> 
> If that's wrong, oh well.


I get your point, but just think changing your crossover structure, rather than just using an EQ, is a hard or not required way to go about it. Yes, I know with setting crossover points you are essentially EQ'ing, but for variance in musical tastes is why they make easy user interfaced EQ's.

I look at it very much in the way as I see people who still use the gain knob to adjust volume output on their amps! After being gone all of these years, you would think some things would change with further education, but low and behold, its still the same.


----------



## 89grand (Nov 23, 2006)

jj_diamond
I think you're taking this out of context. Can a passive system sound great? Sure, as good as active? Sure. But I believe the chances are better in most systems that most users can get an active system to sound better if they have the patience for it.


----------



## Dillyyo (Feb 15, 2008)

jj_diamond said:


> good to know i'm not experienced enough to take on that endeavour, which i have. yet i'm willing to bet my passive setup sounds better than alot of active setups.



Well, were you able to get your active setup to sound good or did you just prefer the sound of your passive setup? I think the numbers do not lie and if almost all if not all of the top competitors use active crossing over then I think there is some validity to my statement.

BTW, you don't use any EQ'ing in your car, right?!


----------



## Dillyyo (Feb 15, 2008)

Bluto Blutarsky said:


> You are welcome and thanks for informing me that people that are experienced choose active.



Well, being that you are the grammatical police, you should know from my statement that I stipulated "in my humble opinion" to the point in question. But hey, many people think things are garbage until someone knowledgeable shows them how to use it!


----------



## Dillyyo (Feb 15, 2008)

MiniVanMan said:


> I'm willing to bet I can take your drivers, and run them active and get better results than your passives


Ignorance is often times bliss....sometimes those passive crossovers just add a little "something" that just isn't quantifiable! Maybe it has to do with the 15000 dollar tube amps!


----------



## Dillyyo (Feb 15, 2008)

Fellippe said:


> Main advantage of passive over active from a SQ point of view is COHERENCE....simplicity, cost, etc. are others.
> 
> I recommend active over passive mostly in situations when you intend to go all out and have the skill/dedication to make it work. In 95% of all scenarios, a perfect active setup will outperform a perfect passive setup, while still maintaining good coherence. There have been certain speakers where better results have been attained with passives.
> 
> ...


Low, mid or high end is the reason we have EQ's and crossovers. The only reason to go from a low to mid or high level amp should be the build quality, internal crossovers, reliability, accurate power delivery etc. IMHO, sonic characteristics is frivolous snake oil.


----------



## BTA (Nov 5, 2005)

Personally, I dont think there's anything "wrong" with running passives. It's whatever sounds best in your install within in your budget.


----------



## Dillyyo (Feb 15, 2008)

dbest2918 said:


> You make an excellent point. * The owner of said gear and said vehicle is the one that determines what type of sound they are looking for. Some may want a smooth and laid back upper end, while others may prefer just the opposite. * Would it be possible for said owner to tailor a system to his/her tastes, with xys system in xyz car?
> 
> I would think that you could tune it for "your" ears. Probably easier to get it to sound "right" to "your" ears with the availability to place the tweeters in what "your" ears tell you is an optimum spot for "your" vehicle.
> Probably easier to get it to sound "right" to "your" ears with the availability of phase control for each individual driver based on the interaction between them in "your" vehicle.
> ...


This is the exact reason of why active is usually superior....flexibility. I can ascertain both of those subjective perceptions through the use of an active crossover setup. I would need to develop separate passive set ups for that to occur. Hence, usually if someone can not create what the passive crossovers are doing to their music, with an active cross over, then its most likely directly correlated to lack of "thorough know how" in using such a device. This is hard science, not theology!


----------



## Dillyyo (Feb 15, 2008)

BTA said:


> Personally, I dont think there's anything "wrong" with running passives. It's whatever sounds best in your install within in your budget.


No one said its wrong. All that was stated was that if you can't ascertain the same level of sound quality with an active then it is most likely due to lack of user ability to fine tune properly.


----------



## BTA (Nov 5, 2005)

Dillyyo said:


> No one said its wrong. All that was stated was that if you can't ascertain the same level of sound quality with an active then it is most likely due to lack of user ability to fine tune properly.


I didnt really ready every response to this thread.

My eyes glaze over sometimes reading some of the longer posts


----------



## Rudeboy (Oct 16, 2005)

Dillyyo said:


> This is the exact reason of why active is usually *superior*....flexibility. I can ascertain both of those subjective perceptions through the use of an active crossover setup. I would need to develop separate passive set ups for that to occur. Hence, usually if someone can not create what the passive crossovers are doing to their music, with an active cross over, then its most likely directly correlated to lack of "thorough know how" in using such a device. This is hard science, not theology!


Replace superior with more flexible and potentially superior results and this thread is over.


----------



## MiniVanMan (Jun 28, 2005)

jj_diamond said:


> try this....
> 
> take one amp and a set of 6x9's. run it full range. then run it by setting the crossovers on the amp acording to the specs of the 6x9's. which one do you say sounds better at moderate listening levels? don't take it out of context with this driver vs that driver and such. which sounds better?
> 
> ...


I have no idea what you're eluding to in your first paragraph. 

I have no idea what you're eluding to in your third paragraph.

I think you're taking this way to personal.

I'm starting to think that you don't have full grasp of how a crossover works based on your statements in your first and third paragraphs. The same challenges exist for both passive and active crossovers, so I don't understand the argument you're making. 

Maybe Chad will chime in on the use of active crossovers in Pro Audio. That's the application that uses active processing the most. You have to compensate for variances in the venues that you're performing in. There's no blanket passive crossover that gives the same results in the Superdome, then the next day at Red Rocks. The same can be said for a car. Acoustic variances change the acoustical properties of the music being played. You can't compensate for acoustic variances with a fixed passive crossover. 

Understand that there are two responses we get from a crossover. First is electrical. This is the property of the crossover itself. It's says you're going to get a fixed cutoff of frequency response at certain frequency point. That's all fine and dandy, but NOTHING works that way in the real world. Designers have to worry about acoustical response. This is very driver, room, and install dependent. Once those variables are accounted for, you can build a passive that adequately compensates for them. However, that's not what's being done when your throw a pre-boxed component set in your car.

Is a 5-10% variance in crossover point going to be very noticeable. That's debatable. I'm sure the same people that will tell you $50.00 a foot cable sounds much better than $10.00 a foot cable will say "yes". However, I maintain it's debatable, and very dependent on the install. The designer of the pre-boxed passive is hoping that the variances aren't significant enough to effect the overall listening experience. Some do better than others, but no engineer with any integrity will tell you that his crossover will work in any vehicle, with the drivers mounted in any location. 

In the following thread I outline how different variances in several factors can affect your overall acoustic response. The crossover I end up with has a 24db acoustical roll off. However, the crossover itself is more of a 30 db electrical.

http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/showthread.php?t=17429

Here's a link to a very good crossover calculator.

http://www.pvconsultants.com/audio/targetgen/pcdc.htm

When entering the parameters of the driver, which is pretty much just impedance and the desired crossover point, you get the standard electrical response values. There is not compensation for acoustic response.

Put into the calculator 8 ohm speaker with a crossover point of 2000 hz. Then look at the values for a 24db Linkwitz Riley alignment. They will be dramatically different (and I mean, not even close) to the design I came up with, and Roman Bednarek did as well. Roman's and mine were very similar, though I had no knowledge of his prior to my designing. This shows that acoustical response absolutely rules the day when it comes to crossover design. A passive crossover that moves from one car to another cannot compensate for the acoustical variances. An active processor can (a good one at least). Once again, you can predict, and come up with something close that will work, but to say that a passive crossover has been optimized to work in a car (generic statement) is patently false. 

I contacted Durwood about a project that I'd like to do to illustrate this whole debate. Right now, I'm looking for a volunteer to offer up their car so I can design a passive crossover around the vehicle. I'm looking to do all the testing, modeling, building, retesting, remodeling, building, retesting, remodeling, building etc, till I get it right. It's a hell of a task.

That being said, PLEASE, no PM's volunteering to offer up your car. It's going to have to be somebody that can go without tunes for several months, and somebody either close to me or Durwood. I won't respond to any PMs.


----------



## dbest2918 (Dec 28, 2007)

jj_diamond said:


> try this....
> 
> take one amp and a set of 6x9's. run it full range. then run it by setting the crossovers on the amp acording to the specs of the 6x9's. which one do you say sounds better at moderate listening levels? don't take it out of context with this driver vs that driver and such. which sounds better?
> 
> ...


I honestly wasn't calling anyone names or trying to be slick. The last line of your post however does sound like a personal attack. FYI Best is my actual last name and D. is the first initial of my first name. No pun intended by the dbest2918. I can see that some people take their opinions on what is right to them very personally. I thought the intent of this forum was a somewhat mature exchange of philosophies, so we can all learn from each other. I am not 20 something anymore so I am not trying to stir animosity or "be slick". I sincerely apologize if you were hurt or offended by any of my previous posts.


----------



## Dillyyo (Feb 15, 2008)

Rudeboy said:


> Replace superior with more flexible and potentially superior results and this thread is over.


I hear ya on that. Keep in consideration though that my original post he was initially responding too clearly stated in my humble opinion.


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

The Benefits of an Active Speaker Lifestyle

and a few off topic other but just as good

"Accuracy, Distortion, and the Audiophile -
A Muse in Himself With His Woofers."

Stereo Imaging, Amplitude Differences, Time Arrival Differences, and the Precedence Effect - Why Time-Alignment is Important for Getting the Most Out of High-Fidelity Audio Systems


"What We Hear vs. What We Perceive"


----------



## Abmolech (Nov 2, 2006)

Riddle me this, 

If you had a powerful and flexible equaliser (assuming access to every driver)
Could you use it for a crossover?

I believe people need to go back to basics, what do conventional crossovers do, and why do we use them?

Hint,
You can use minimalist approach and use a cap and driver inductance for a band pass.
You can use an acoustic band pass for similar results.
An active setup can use a baffle, and provide the enclosure.(assuming low enough system Q)

It is the reason for small and Thiele parameters, IE system network evaluation.

People who expect a standard passive crossover to be optimal, expect the system network to be optimal. I suggest, very few people understand system network effects, especially given the poor "design" of baffles and enclosures viewable in the install thread. One only has to spend a limited time with waveguides, to appreciate the consequences.

Clue
Read baffle step response.


----------



## FoxPro5 (Feb 14, 2006)

t3sn4f2 said:


> "What We Hear vs. What We Perceive"


Great article right there! Nice find.



> *Harmonic distortion* in relatively small amounts can add body and presence, making the undistorted sound in comparison seem dry, analytical, and sterile. *Those accustomed to it may find the absence disturbing*, sometimes even complaining of missing notes. *Possible causes include* pretty much everything (except for a banana split with extra nuts), but the biggest culprits are usually loudspeakers, vinyl (phonograph records), and *under-powered amplifiers*.


Damn wattifier not kickin out the SQ dee beez. Yet another reason to avoid audio system passivity.


----------



## Fast1one (Apr 6, 2007)

jj_diamond said:


> try this....
> 
> take one amp and a set of 6x9's. run it full range. then run it by setting the crossovers on the amp acording to the specs of the 6x9's. which one do you say sounds better at moderate listening levels? don't take it out of context with this driver vs that driver and such. which sounds better?
> 
> ...


Funny how you mention concerts, since most of them are ran active to compensate for different venues 

Edit: Looks like I was beat to the punch


----------



## placenta (Feb 2, 2008)

Whew.. after reading all 116 posts... im still not decided on active vs passive.. since i can never make up my mind on anything, I think active might drive me crazy. But then again, I dont like those passive boxes sitting under my carpet. If I was sure I could get my CDT classics to sound just as good active as they would sound with their own passive box, then I might try it.


----------



## Daishi (Apr 18, 2006)

Just pull the specs off the manuals and plug them into your HU's active controls. Then time align away.


----------



## Oliver (Jun 25, 2007)

placenta said:


> Whew.. after reading all 116 posts... im still not decided on active vs passive.. since i can never make up my mind on anything, I think active might drive me crazy. But then again, I dont like those passive boxes sitting under my carpet. If I was sure I could get my CDT classics to sound just as good active as they would sound with their own passive box, then I might try it.


Oh, they'll sound fine, [ and your pocket will be a little lighter ],win-win


----------



## placenta (Feb 2, 2008)

Daishi said:


> Just pull the specs off the manuals and plug them into your HU's active controls. Then time align away.


I was trying to find the crossover points for these speakers I own:

http://www.woofersetc.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=product.display&Product_ID=4596


----------



## placenta (Feb 2, 2008)

a$$hole said:


> Oh, they'll sound fine, [ and your pocket will be a little lighter ],win-win


more specific? which way will sound fine?


----------



## michaelsil1 (May 24, 2007)

a$$hole said:


> Oh, they'll sound fine, [ and your pocket will be a little lighter ],win-win


Yeah, lighten up those pockets.


----------



## grampi (Jun 29, 2007)

Back in the day (late 80's thru the mid 90's) almost all of my systems were active. But then again, I was driving bigger vehicles with more room for more amps. I usually ran 3 seperate amps; a small one for the tweets, a medium powered amp for the mids, and a large two channel amp bridged for the subs. But these systems were more complex and required more wiring. Now days I find it's much easier to run passive as you can get away with running one 4 channel amp. Much less wiring, much less tuning, and even less cost. I really couldn't see making the argument to go active unless you're just completely unable to achieve the type of balance you're looking for between the mids and tweets. I haven't had that problem with passives.


----------



## traceywatts (Jun 2, 2008)

I'm a noob, but here is my take on the subject. I think ALL OF YOU GUYS(I have only read the first six pages of this thread) ARE EQUALLY WRONG! Im not an expert, but I don't think the argument should be "Active vs Passive", but "Well-Tuned Active(by someone, not me, who knows what they are doing) vs. Low-Budget, Generic Meant-To-Be Everywhere with No Consideration on YOUR Evironment Passive". After all, x-over points and slopes can be replicated with a passive or active xover, right?


----------



## traceywatts (Jun 2, 2008)

As soon as I posted that comment, I read npdang on page 7.


----------



## aztec1 (Jun 13, 2008)

Sorry for the noob question here... Why does it matter in your system where your amplifier is in the chain?

Even if you're running active, it still has to be crossed over somehow. Do op-amps sound better than inductors and caps? Why?


----------



## npdang (Jul 29, 2005)

There's not much of a difference in sound between active crossovers. One 2khz 4th order butterworth highpass filter is going to sound and behave fairly similarly to another.

Betweeen passive filters, the quality and type of the components may make quite an audible difference, especially when more power is put through them.

For that reason, if you are a firm believer in the sound that certain passive components impart into your system, then Imho that is a valid reason for preferring one method over the other.

From the perspective of someone who prefers to add as little coloration to the reproduction as possible, I would never consider that as a reason to prefer one over the other.


----------



## keynesus (Jun 29, 2008)

I think the fun with Passive is that you can try different combinations to see what the sound changes.


----------



## Jopop (Jun 23, 2008)

keynesus said:


> I think the fun with Passive is that you can try different combinations to see what the sound changes.


What 



I prefer active for the added clarity, control and output of the midwoofer, the flexibility of tweeter positioning pretty much anyhow you'd like it with different xover points, slopes and TA and not to mention changing the tweeter level on the fly and having a nearly infinite range of tweeter level to choose from as opposed to the -6, -3 and 0db switches on a common passive.

Also because most garden variety passive xovers suck.

With a high quality passive xover and the speakers being mounted and used in accordance with the design of the speaker system (i.e. tweeter and woofer on same plane close together mounted on-axis) a passive would be just fine, however in most cars these criteria are not met and in most of the affordable speaker systems the passive xover isn't top priority.


Not to mention adjusting tweeter level on the fly to compensate for a bad recording with buzzy highs etc is a godsend.


----------

