# Testing - Active vs passive



## ANT (Oct 15, 2005)

Vote for your preference


----------



## Vestax (Aug 16, 2005)

Need a poll there ant...


----------



## AVIDEDTR (Sep 11, 2008)

I'm about to do the switch from Passive to Active - I'll let you know shortly!


----------



## Oliver (Jun 25, 2007)

With some head units active is the only way to go ! Pioneer Premier , etc..,


----------



## WuNgUn (Feb 9, 2008)

Active for sure...but once you have active, and you start trying different settings (carPC), it's really hard to stop! I find myself on a Holy Grail mission of crossover points and slopes!


----------



## azngotskills (Feb 24, 2006)

it depends....by now you should know that


----------



## TheDavel (Sep 8, 2006)

How about a mixture of the two? that is what I run and like- maybe I am just "special"?


----------



## drtool (Nov 26, 2007)

Both. I am actlivly passive. Tweets passive mid,sub active.


----------



## drtool (Nov 26, 2007)

Tried to post but was told I am spaming and do not have enough post to post in this section. Dam gettin tough in da diyma hood.


----------



## ANT (Oct 15, 2005)

drtool said:


> Tried to post but was told I am spaming and do not have enough post to post in this section. Dam gettin tough in da diyma hood.


 
Any chance you can post a screen shot?

ANT


----------



## drtool (Nov 26, 2007)

No the screen would last maybe 2-3 seconds then move on.I back clicked 4 or 5 times so I could read the screen. I saw I could no longer post on here and no mods were on so i just went back to work. running Vista and Firefox.
Wayne


----------



## drtool (Nov 26, 2007)

No the screen would last maybe 2-3 seconds then move on.I back clicked 4 or 5 times so I could read the screen. I saw I could no longer post on here and no mods were on so i just went back to work. running Vista and Firefox.
Wayne


----------



## mvw2 (Oct 2, 2005)

I will never run passive again.


----------



## JediMentality (May 7, 2008)

Currently running cheap coaxials actively off of h/u :blush:. Man, do I need to get moving on my install


----------



## JediMentality (May 7, 2008)

Okay so I tried to make a post here, and I think I got the same spam message that was spoken of above. Then I refreshed this thread and my post wasn't made. Tried to post the same thing and was told it was a duplicate post. Yet, my post still never posted??! 

Here is what I tried to post: "Currently running cheap coaxials actively off of h/u :blush:. Man, do I need to get moving on my install ." 

Here's the spam message:


----------



## JediMentality (May 7, 2008)

Huh, double post. WTF? Apparently I needed permission for the above posts.


----------



## Diru (May 23, 2006)

Power is cheap, divide and conquer.


----------



## bmaupin (Feb 22, 2006)

TheDavel05 said:


> How about a mixture of the two? that is what I run and like- maybe I am just "special"?


I agree. Deal with the response shaping with the passive and the high & low pass actively seems ideal.

If you have ever designed a home speaker, you know that the crossover not only provides basic low pass and high pass functions, but it provides response shaping. Does an active crossover deal with the rising midrange response or any general frequency response anomaly? No. I'm not saying that a flat frequency response is absolute, but a 5+ db rise/dip must be dealt with. I'd also bet that a passive notch filter is the best and cheapest way to deal with a resonance spike.

How many out there have SoundEasy or some software that can model this combination? I have it, but have only done passive. Why - the active response response must be combined with the driver's natural rolloff and to get matching order rolloffs you will have mixed order (I say "good luck"). 

- Brad


----------



## less (Nov 30, 2006)

Sorry but this just isn't a good yes/no question! I spent a year or so with a set of Rainbow PRofi speakers - which I still think were a great set of speakers for the money. Along the way, I tried literally hundreds of combinations of things on my active system to get the set to cross well... and still was NEVER able to achieve the great balance I was able to get when I used the passive system. I assume it had something to do with the passive system having built in phase correction, but who knows. 

No with my current setup, Morel 9" in doors and kicks with Scan 12ms and Scan Air circs, I couldn't imagine using a passive system... they flow together seemlessly using active and of course, you eliminate a lot of electrical components in the high power pathway that eat power, cause inefficiency, and can lead to many other problems!

That being said, I'd go active in a heart beat anytime I could do so effectively. I guess I should have just said, "It depends! You should know that!"

Less


----------



## GlasSman (Nov 14, 2006)

Both have their place.

My newly acquired Winter car will have the passives installed along with the active x-over in my 9855.

Once I get my other car competition worthy I'll be going 4 way active....but that may change.


----------



## ChiTownSQ (Apr 7, 2008)

I like a good combo of the 2 types!


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

I would say that I like bi-amping: meaning using the passive crossover but having the control over each drivers with equalizer and TA


----------



## sqshoestring (Jun 19, 2007)

Most of the time I run passive highs and active on sub. I tend to pick drivers that work well on top and don't have to mess with them, just some EQ maybe. Subs I must have active, have to change that all the time. I've run three way, but for the pain I rarely see any advantage...KISS works better. A good comp set should be sorted out pretty close. If you want to run all active or figure it is easier than building good passives for custom drivers, then you might as well try it. I tend to swap front drivers a few times looking for something that works well without more wires and amps. The times I ran three way were just for fun really.


----------



## Beat_Dominator (Jun 13, 2008)

Once I went to active.....I swore I'd nevergo back. Now I kind of regret it as I see the price ofmy comming install keep climbing...... but I know it will all be worth it the first time I take a road trip with my dialed-in install.


----------



## Beat_Dominator (Jun 13, 2008)

I swore I'd never go back to passive..... active ruins your wallet for life


----------



## Baldyzx-9 (Dec 17, 2008)

Hi all,

I said Passive, however, after reading the above posts realize I'm in fact utilizing both. 

Passive between Mid/Tweets. Active for my "kick-pods". Also active for my Subs.

I'm sort of starting all over - had a 95 Corolla done up with Focal drivers, being driven by a mixture of Butler and Fosgate. Took forever to tweak it so it was just right, then gave the car to my wife.

I'm starting all over again with a 2000 Honda Civic with a newly rebuilt altenator (134 amps - 2 stock batteries)

This is why I've joined diyma - thought this time I just might have info available to save me from always learning the hard-way...I'm sure a few of you know what I mean.

Ok, I've said my Hello and bored you with who I am - so, soon the questions shall pour forth.

Thanks and God Bless All !!!

What are "Trackbacks" ??


----------



## bs953 (Dec 24, 2008)

I always go active it lets you tune to your tastes.


----------



## Calum (Aug 13, 2008)

after just going to active, I can't imagine why I'd go back. The midrange of my Boston Pro 6.5's is MUCH cleaner. The top end isn't as bright/in-your-face.


----------



## ninor (Jan 8, 2009)

What do you guys think I should run, active or passive? 

My car is 2008 350z and the equipment that I got and need to install after I get my kicks made is: 

Alpine 9887
Focal 165 K2Ps in custom kicks made by Bing (Simplicity Sound)
Alpine PDX 4.150 for comps
DLS Iridium 10" in custom fiberglass enclosure
Alpine 600.1 for the sub
12ga wire for sub and 16ga wire for speakers (I got complete used wiring for cheap from another guy that is selling his 350Z). 

I have a friend that runs 300wrms per side to his K2Ps in passive and they sound great but I am not sure if 300wrms would be too much for 16ga wire, would it? I am getting wiring for active setup by the way

If I go active, how much power should I gave to each mid and tweet? Also, do the PDX amps have any type of EQ on them? Just in case my battery runs out and 9887 resets, I wouldn't want to send a low note to my tweets to blow them.


----------



## Blu (Nov 3, 2008)

Active is my preference


----------



## Fixtion (Aug 25, 2006)

the ability to change typologies with an active system provided by DC reference is amazing.
active for me.


----------



## Lance_S (Feb 11, 2009)

Always been active for me. First post. Hello everyone!


----------



## Vega-LE (Feb 22, 2009)

I think there really isn't a true way to compare the two against each other. Each set-up has it's advantages over the other. 

My ideal set-up though uses a passive crossover in a coaxial configuration. The car audio companies already did most of the hard work already (building passive crossovers that match the speakers best tuning abilities).

I've even heard some very... good coaxial speakers. It's just a matter of someone getting quality speakers installed correctly.

If you could keep the mid/woofer and tweeter within a few inches of each other and on the same plane I would think one wouldn't need to go active. Given these are sold as a set.


----------



## Vega-LE (Feb 22, 2009)

Now if you have a set-up using drivers not sold as sets and and are located apart from each other (tweeter in pillar and mid/woofer in door) then active tuning may be better. A lot of it depends upon configuration and location.


----------



## icu812 (Jan 12, 2009)

I chose active,
but what you did not ask and I think it should be worth mentioning
was the slope 6/12/18/or 24 Db's


----------



## icu812 (Jan 12, 2009)

OPPS!! double post


----------



## icu812 (Jan 12, 2009)

Vega-LE said:


> I think there really isn't a true way to compare the two against each other. Each set-up has it's advantages over the other.


I agree 



Vega-LE said:


> My ideal set-up though uses a passive crossover in a coaxial configuration. The car audio companies already did most of the hard work already (building passive crossovers that match the speakers best tuning abilities).


I would have to disagree with this somewhat,

I have taken a set of "coaxials" removed the x-over and and had built a "better x-over IMHO"
some not all,,, use cheap inferior caps and inductors, wires ,PCB's etc,etc.
when they could have done better. (power handling and SQ) staying in the same $ range they were designed for.
this is just my opinion and experience. 
and by no means do I consider my self a professional in any why , shape ,or form.
just an avid novice looking for quality sound.


----------



## icu812 (Jan 12, 2009)

I chose active,
but what you did not ask and I think it should be worth mentioning
was the slope 6/12/18/or 24 Db's


----------



## rockinridgeline (Feb 2, 2009)

If you like to tinker go active, If you like to slap it in and listen to it, use the passives that the "experts" that built your speakers supplied (even though they have no idea of your vehicles acoustics). It really isn't a yes or no question. Do what works, then become dissatisfied with it after a while, then do something else.


----------



## bass313head (Feb 21, 2009)

rockinridgeline said:


> If you like to tinker go active, If you like to slap it in and listen to it, use the passives that the "experts" that built your speakers supplied (even though they have no idea of your vehicles acoustics). It really isn't a yes or no question. Do what works, then become dissatisfied with it after a while, then do something else.


Exactly. It depends on the vehicle and a long list of other factors for me. 
Personally I like the easy street and go active.


----------



## Vega-LE (Feb 22, 2009)

icu812 said:


> I agree
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I was talking about having a set of comps in a coaxial configuration like these; 

Boston Acoustics - Mobile Audio - Products

JBL Car & Marine Audio

For me it makes things easier to tune, an easier install, looks factory, and I like the idea of my speakers (tweeter, mid/woofer) playing in line with each other at/from the same location. I don't like the sound of my tweeter(s) shooting across the windshield either.


----------



## fish (Jun 30, 2007)

My first system at 18 was active using the Coustic XM-3. I had alot of fun using that little unit. As the years passed & I had different vehicles I started using passive components, but always active sub. Just in the last month I went all active again... and I must say I miss it! The only downside is now I constantly think of different setups I want to try.


----------



## radioflyer97 (Mar 30, 2009)

Active and Passive here. My Front "2" channels are active, but divided into Midbass and Midrange via Alpine's SPX 17MB passive crossover.


----------



## dashan (Apr 7, 2009)

tweets passive
Mids passive


----------



## timbo2 (Apr 25, 2009)

passive now really want to go active

vifa p17 + d26


----------



## timbo2 (Apr 25, 2009)

passive now really want to go active

vifa p17 + d26


----------



## johnvroom (May 5, 2009)

This is a lot like the sealed vs ported argument...

I have always liked passive store bought xovers: they are nice and easy, they work, they are designed to the mechanical properties of the drivers, they are engineered for the mobile environment end of discussion.
Yet active crossovers opened the door to new opportunities (and occasionally new issues). With active you can custom tailor the xover to the vehicle in addition to the drivers, and this frees up tweeter location among other things. This also allows the owner to screw up the system more than should be humanly possible. And the always popular... I disconnected my battery and lost all my settings.

I just built my own passive xover and it is a bit more of a challenge than I had thought but still quite achievable. Installation was more difficult than with a store bought item and I had to provide the proper levels of protection for environmental hazards (shock, vibration, moisture, heat). also the xover points were limited by the availability of capacitor and inductor values. Still it was satisfying and I guesstimated the correct crossover points (RTA is proof of the pudding there). high quality caps and inductors arnt cheep either

all in all active is a great tool and is probably better in the mobile environment but passive is easier and safer and sounds good to boot


----------



## patch2361 (Jun 15, 2009)

Active if I understood it I'm using passive on Alpine SPX17s hopefully someday I will learn. I've been an SPL bass head for too many years and finally learned to listen to music.


----------



## maloy (Nov 30, 2008)

active for me...like others said you will not be contented with what you have and always try something different.


----------



## Jonesi (May 28, 2009)

I don't have any real experience yet but I'm building my first active set in the coming weeks. I'm expecting great things from it! I'm going to use Hertz ML1600 mids and ML280 tweeters with Genesis Four Channel amp.


----------



## kkoelze (Jun 20, 2009)

good post.


----------



## Hernan (Jul 9, 2006)

Is the same asking "Fixed" or "Variable".
Active is better, but... you have to know how to set crossovers and EQ.
If you don't, spend some time learning or stick with a passive set.


----------



## johnvroom (May 5, 2009)

I think I have a very basic question... one that has not been answered 

if there is only one correct crossover point and crossover slope in your vehicle (and this isnt really too far from the truth in most situations) is active better than passive? Is either actually better than the other sonically?


----------



## TREETOP (Feb 11, 2009)

johnvroom said:


> I think I have a very basic question... one that has not been answered
> 
> if there is only one correct crossover point and crossover slope in your vehicle (and this isnt really too far from the truth in most situations) is active better than passive? Is either actually better than the other sonically?


Generally all else being equal, I prefer not to have a passive crossover absorbing a good percentage of my amplifier's power (and converting it to heat) when I can have each amplifier channel working only within its passband instead.


----------



## johnvroom (May 5, 2009)

TREETOP said:


> Generally all else being equal, I prefer not to have a passive crossover absorbing a good percentage of my amplifier's power (and converting it to heat) when I can have each amplifier channel working only within its passband instead.


also the only real argument I had, but really how much power does a inductor (series/ parallel) and a capacitor (series/parallel) consume? 3% ?

I could argue a complex passive crossover would absorb more and do more phase shifts than a simple 6dB or 12 dB slope crossover but has anyone listened for or heard the difference? All high end home systems have passives and they seem to do pretty well, many pro speakers do as well.


----------



## rexxxlo (Apr 14, 2009)

Fixtion said:


> the ability to change typologies with an active system provided by DC reference is amazing.
> active for me.


can you explain changing topologies and what dc referencing means please?


----------



## emperorjj1 (Sep 10, 2008)

3 way active all the way


----------



## akbarelamin (Jan 19, 2009)

I ran both active and passive systems and I can tell you from experience once you go active you'll never go passive again. On the flip side of the same coin, because Im using the Clarion DRZ 9255 Im now having to wrestle with rather I should stay with a two way system or go three way-active of course! 

Last point on running an active system, make sure you have either a good processing source unit or and electronic crossover designed for active usage.


----------



## Chaos (Oct 27, 2005)

Given the choice, I would prefer active for most any application.


----------



## DUATH (May 8, 2005)

I prefer active in an automotive environment.


----------



## lechuck (Aug 24, 2009)

Active in the home/hifi world is godly expensive and very rare as people like to show off amps and preamps in traditional passive setups. Active doesn't really exist in the commercial audiophile world excepted for the messiah brands like Meridian and such...

Active in automobile is far more expensive and time consuming but in the end you get only advantages. The DIY circles seems more educated that the lamba consumer so it is not a surprise active wins here!


----------



## mavric (Sep 9, 2007)

I voted for active as that is what I am setting up in my new car. My current ride is passive but from testing I prefer active with the gear I am running.


----------



## qikazel (Aug 9, 2009)

subwoofery said:


> I would say that I like bi-amping: meaning using the passive crossover but having the control over each drivers with equalizer and TA


I have this quandry right now. My PPI 6.5 componenets are bi-ampable. I am running a Soundstream ref 500 to the mids and tweets now through the passive x-overs. I have a Pioneer 9200 DE-Q with can be active and has time delay. I am adding a Soundstream Class A 100 to the tweets this week. Do I use the bi-amping through the passive x-overs that came with the speakers or do I cut out the passive x-overs all together and run everything totally active?


----------



## timbo2 (Apr 25, 2009)

yea man kill the passives that way you get the most out of your amp! also the head unit can do better slopes !


----------



## Nik1976 (Oct 8, 2009)

Passive is hardly an option for those who cares about SQ


----------



## npdang (Jul 29, 2005)

This question is way too broad and poorly worded.

Are we talking about the implementation of a given filter, whether it be passive or active? Or are we talking about the use of pre-made passive filters, versus a diy active one? And in what kind of context?

If we're talking about the latter, in a home environment, it's doubtful to me that 99.9% of the general public could execute a better active xover than the passive xover that generally accompanies a well made/designed speaker.

If we're talking about car audio on the other hand, passive filters are generally so simplistic in nature and utterly indifferent to different vehicle acoustics and mounting locations that most people with some general guidance can come up with a better option.


----------



## Dogs rule! (Sep 30, 2009)

Hello fella's! It's my first post here(I needed to make it somewhere!)... I have to pick active. I had a 2008, 2-door Civic with an Alpine CDA-9887 ran 3-way active to a set of Rainbow Profi 265CS on a JL 300/4 and a 13W6V2 on a 1000/1. It was the best "sounding" car I've ever owned! I've had many "loud" cars, but this was THEE cleanest sounding car I've ever owned! Soooo... I just needed to chime in somewhere to start my venturing and figured this was an appropriate spot!


----------



## jinstall (Sep 23, 2009)

it depends on your active unit. for example jvc built in crossovers from their decks won't have accurate points, they'll be very poorly approximated, alpine or eclipse will be much more accurate.

passive in a components setup, such as the x-over they come with, is obviously a good choice for the speakers they come with, though more than a little inflexible/tunable.

I usually use the active crossovers built into the amplifiers before anything else, though for components I'll stick with the passive and keep it simple, though high pass on amps can be setup well for tweeters in modern amps, and low pass can be set for midbass, and combined with a *proper* high pass in the deck can be an effective bandpass filter.

I can easily see why wungun says active ruins your wallett for life.


keep it simple. there's much more you can do to your system to improve more and more easily than to make everything active.


----------



## chongl (Jan 8, 2008)

rexxxlo said:


> can you explain changing topologies and what dc referencing means please?


Zapco has a DC Reference line of amps that do TA, Crossover, EQ...etc.


----------



## remeolb (Nov 6, 2009)

Are there any speaker manufacturers that recommend running their speakers active? Everyone I have ever spoken to says "if you like the sound of our speakers a large portion of that is due to the crossover."


----------



## Hernan (Jul 9, 2006)

remeolb said:


> Are there any speaker manufacturers that recommend running their speakers active? Everyone I have ever spoken to says "if you like the sound of our speakers a large portion of that is due to the crossover."


Yes, competition line speakers cames without passives. Legatia line. DlS scandinavia, SoundStream Pro, Dynaudio (i guess). 

Passives works very well for a home speaker.
For car audio they are more about convenience that performance.


----------



## sqshoestring (Jun 19, 2007)

You certainly have more control with active, but I'd think it would be less important today with everyone running huge EQs.


----------



## remeolb (Nov 6, 2009)

Hernan said:


> Yes, competition line speakers cames without passives. Legatia line. DlS scandinavia, SoundStream Pro, Dynaudio (i guess).
> 
> Passives works very well for a home speaker.
> For car audio they are more about convenience that performance.


That's what I've always thought. I just ordered a set of Morel Elate Limited Edition 2-ways and the guys at Morel told me that there is no way they would recommend ditching the passive crossover.


----------



## rain27 (Jan 15, 2009)

Hernan said:


> Yes, competition line speakers cames without passives. Legatia line. DlS scandinavia, SoundStream Pro, Dynaudio (i guess).
> 
> Passives works very well for a home speaker.
> For car audio they are more about convenience that performance.


DLS is releasing a crossover specifically for the Scandinavia comps...


----------



## rain27 (Jan 15, 2009)

remeolb said:


> That's what I've always thought. I just ordered a set of Morel Elate Limited Edition 2-ways and the guys at Morel told me that there is no way they would recommend ditching the passive crossover.


Boston Acoustics also strongly recommends using their supplied crossovers...it makes you wonder. The engineers who build these speakers should know better than anyone else, right??


----------



## Hernan (Jul 9, 2006)

rain27 said:


> DLS is releasing a crossover specifically for the Scandinavia comps...


Why they should keep some potencial customers out?

Of course, nice speakers could be used with passives xo too.

A "custom" optimized xo could be done for a fixed bafle. 

The car install is so variable that is not posible to shape an optimized FR. There isn't one size fits all.

Look at the high end passives like the Utopia n7. It has a lot of tuning options. 
Why?...


----------



## Topless Stang (Nov 30, 2009)

Active


----------



## XllentAudio (Jun 29, 2009)

Definately active because I can cross my tweeters lower. I recently did the switch and this is my first system ever and it's a night and day difference. Everything sounds clearer and can get way louder. I'm still playing with alot of the settings and am still learning what's optimum for the sound stage. I didn't feel nearly as much impact with the passive than I do now. The imaging is pretty good especially for being in the stock locations. My tweets are cross at 3.15 khz 24 db/oc and my sub is crossed at 63 at 24 db/oc on my 7200. Midrange is 63hz to 3.15hz at 24 db/oc.


----------



## bsully1850 (Apr 6, 2008)

All active


----------



## DATCAT (Aug 3, 2009)

I am currently running passive with Diamond Audio componets. I am trying to decide if I want to go active with theese or wait until I can affort HAT.


----------



## Hernan (Jul 9, 2006)

DATCAT said:


> I am currently running passive with Diamond Audio componets. I am trying to decide if I want to go active with theese or wait until I can affort HAT.


Diamond has very good components! HATs are nice but don't underestimate your Diamonds.


----------



## k-ink (Dec 20, 2009)

I voted passive, based on me using high end gear in my home in both passive and active. I have always used passive in my car too. But my next system will be active just so I can have a play


----------



## Oliver (Jun 25, 2007)

JediMentality said:


> Currently running cheap coaxials actively off of h/u :blush:. Man, do I need to get moving on my install





JediMentality said:


> Okay so I tried to make a post here, and I think I got the same spam message that was spoken of above. Then I refreshed this thread and my post wasn't made. Tried to post the same thing and was told it was a duplicate post. Yet, my post still never posted??!
> 
> Here is what I tried to post: "Currently running cheap coaxials actively off of h/u :blush:. Man, do I need to get moving on my install ."
> 
> Here's the spam message:





JediMentality said:


> Huh, double post. WTF? Apparently I needed permission for the above posts.


Jedi may the Force be with choo !


----------



## Cooluser23 (Dec 23, 2009)

I'm confused.

Do you mean active as in amped,

or active as in active crossover (via amp) vs. factory passive crossovers?


----------



## betterbelizeit (Oct 4, 2009)

Active crossovers will continue to be the most popular choice and not because of the usual pros given to it such as better imaging and soundstage (Which is debatable), but because so many of us who buy component speakers are supplied with the cheapest made passive crossovers that a manufacturer can produce. If you had a set of passive crossovers from the Rainbow Reference system, you'll never go active again. And, ok..if the arguement is that only 0.000000002% of guys who are inot car audio actually do use the Rainbow Reference, then find yourself someone who knows how to make a custom made passive crossover (Many claim they can but trust me when I say that it's a ***** to make one that sounds good) with high grade parts from Mundorf and/or Black Gate. It may even the playing field and who knows, the poll may start to favor passive crossovers.


----------



## zpaguy (Jan 17, 2010)

betterbelizeit said:


> Active crossovers will continue to be the most popular choice and not because of the usual pros given to it such as better imaging and soundstage (Which is debatable), but because so many of us who buy component speakers are supplied with the cheapest made passive crossovers that a manufacturer can produce. If you had a set of passive crossovers from the Rainbow Reference system, you'll never go active again. And, ok..if the arguement is that only 0.000000002% of guys who are inot car audio actually do use the Rainbow Reference, then find yourself someone who knows how to make a custom made passive crossover (Many claim they can but trust me when I say that it's a ***** to make one that sounds good) with high grade parts from Mundorf and/or Black Gate. It may even the playing field and who knows, the poll may start to favor passive crossovers.


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

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

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

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

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


----------



## nick561 (Jun 25, 2009)

active ftw


----------



## SQ+SPL= (Jan 20, 2010)

Been diy'ing home kit for a while now... simpler always sounds more 'real'. Single ended triodes ,Lowther twin cones in Big horns, no crossovers, vinyl... less is more yeah
So, HU> amps> high end passive coax's with a sub right next to it, each side - real simple.
I wish ....


----------



## sqshoestring (Jun 19, 2007)

I often use passive comps, I can mount them at the same distance usually and EQ to tweak them. It saves me hassle of another amp/RCA and wire run/tuning hassle when I rarely have tuning issues with passive tweeters once I get a basic setup on them. It is easy to swap tweeters compared to other drivers if I have to. But I'd rather have active and control from the driver seat of mid/sub and midbass if I have them. In fact I've found a bass range parametric has become one of my favorite things in addition to the above, my 880PRS EQ is not as good for that.

You can easily get all the power you want today cheap, so I don't see that as a negative for passives. I just looked at an amp for $109 that was 2x250rms or more, at 4 ohms.

Full active is more fun to play with, and that is great if you want to play with it I've done it before. I just don't find it necessary for tweeters in my experience for most systems. I do see it as a great learning experience and something anyone into audio should do at least once, but, lets face it car audio is not rocket science. It takes more effort to set up passives, but the install is cheaper/smaller/cleaner/harder to tune (change) if you can't EQ it. And if you want T/A and can't install drivers proper distance yes that is an issue w/passives.

I like the KISS method too, I'd not have an EQ (or have to use one) at all if I could do it but that takes a pile of work. What I found best is actually a quality 4/5 band like the LP PA2 or Audiocontrol units were great on top of a well tuned system. They allowed you to easily tweak the sound due to the source material on the move, if the system was tuned fairly well without that. Having to fiddle with the big EQ in the 880PRS is a pita and not near as usable....and source material is never the same. On the other hand the DSP HU is great for KISS, its all in one, I just wish a simple 5 band was on the front or could be ported into it with a dash control and leave the complex stuff for system tuning in the garage. Encoder volume knobs suck too, lol.


----------



## Ram4ever (Oct 21, 2009)

I much prefer active crossovers. The ability to alter the crossover points is essential on one-off systems, and while it's not as practical to execute in a vehicle as in a home stereo or PA system, the possibility of time alignment exists. This makes a huge difference in ear fatigue to me.


----------



## Frijoles24 (Apr 19, 2010)

AVIDEDTR said:


> I'm about to do the switch from Passive to Active - I'll let you know shortly!



me too!


----------



## UNFORGIVEN (Sep 25, 2010)

Just went from passive x-overs to active (Alpine CDA-9887). 
I'm definitely liking the ability to custom tune the sound


----------



## Nirvana (Sep 18, 2009)

What are people using for active crossovers? I see references to a very high-end Pioneer HU and a couple out-of-production Alpine and Clarion units. It would be great to see some links to currently available HU's or outboard units supporting active crossovers.


----------



## K.IlpoP (Feb 18, 2009)

During the last couple of decades Monitoring and majority of Sound Reinforcement have changed from passive to active. The benefits, in addition to more power directly into voice coils and more SPL due to xover before power amps, lie in easy response shaping and easy tuning into listening space. The latter is rapidly developing with automated response measurement and calibration. In complicated environment these benefits clearly surpass the burden of some additional cost.


----------



## Oliver (Jun 25, 2007)

Nirvana said:


> What are people using for active crossovers? I see references to a very high-end Pioneer HU and a couple out-of-production Alpine and Clarion units. It would be great to see some links to currently available HU's or outboard units supporting active crossovers.


They get discussed regularly.

You'd have to search the reviews section.


----------



## cuibono (Sep 27, 2009)

activater


----------



## lilmingjai (Sep 4, 2009)

Nirvana said:


> What are people using for active crossovers? I see references to a very high-end Pioneer HU and a couple out-of-production Alpine and Clarion units. It would be great to see some links to currently available HU's or outboard units supporting active crossovers.


i heard that the pioneer HU is more user friendly than most others. i personally went with audiocontrol because i have a navi HU.


----------



## Nirvana (Sep 18, 2009)

lilmingjai said:


> i heard that the pioneer HU is more user friendly than most others. i personally went with audiocontrol because i have a navi HU.


Thanks. That's very helpful.


----------



## lilmingjai (Sep 4, 2009)

Beat_Dominator said:


> I swore I'd never go back to passive..... active ruins your wallet for life


i totally agree. i have some PG Ti1 crossed them at 1.9k and still blew it (twice), and PG Ti6 crossed at 100 and blew those too when i decided to go active. and recently i have the Morel Supremo Piccolo's crossed them at 1.9 (they sound so goddamn sweet) cranked the volume and guess what? uh huh, i blew them too. but i'm still gonna go active if i can afford it. i just need a less beefier amp.

does any one knows if morel speakers are fixable, if so where can it be done? i know the home speaker are, but what about the mobile?i have a total of 6 tweets, 2 soft mids, and 4 mid woofers that are blown. so sad i have no music right now.


----------



## 126db91stang (Nov 7, 2009)

Well, maybe power is to be talked about in some way. My first system in 1991 used a hifonics thor (clean 120x2) to power the whole system. I paralleled a coil leading to a 4 ohm pyle pounder 10" and a cap leading to my 6 1/2" 4 ohm and 6x9" 4 ohm yamaha's in series. So I was hoping that was was between a 4 and 8 ohm load overall? Anyway...it was really clean and all the instruments came through...lots of definition and good bass but not compared to a modern low hitting system. Now even though a lot of people may not think so...but I think 100 watts is a load of power and plenty to fill a car interior. 

Here is my thought. If you have a system with good/great power, there is less of a need to go active since you have the power to get to loud levels before distortion. This is opposed to a system w/ 30 or 40 watt power...the highs will of cousre distort when that bass starts distorting at a descent volume. Am I right in my thinking here? The subs are the speakers that will bring distortion to the rest of the speakers in a 'low power" passive system... but if you have 100-150 watts of clean power, distortion shouldn't be too much of a problem all the way up to pretty loud levels, especially in a ported system. 

All that being said...I have been running active w/ a pioneer deq 9200 for several years and I can get good sound if I tweak away, but I miss my simple passive system where the music just seemed effortless. I just had bass and treble in the passive system but it was easy. I think my current system has to be tuned by a pro as far as cut off's, slopes, and levels. 


Active vs passive...in a low power system, definitely active. In a high power passive is okay to me.


----------



## sqcomp (Sep 21, 2009)

I enjoy the fingertip control of an active system. There is something to be said for a well put together active crossover that one make with his own hands. The convinience certainly seems to he with active though IMHO.


----------



## Miniboom (Jul 15, 2010)

When there's no other parameters than "passive" or "active", there really are no reasons whatsoever to select "passive" in the poll. 

I wonder who chose "passive", and why?


----------



## Zolty (Dec 5, 2010)

I've never heard active system in home audio - they are not very popular. Are they?
There must be a reason ...


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Zolty said:


> I've never heard active system in home audio - they are not very popular. Are they?
> There must be a reason ...


That's because home and car audio are two different animals.


----------



## FartinInTheTub (May 25, 2010)

I bought a DRZ9255 just to go active. I hooked up 3 Soundstream Reference 300 amplifiers to my 3-way frontstage and was astonished! After careful tuning and getting all the crossover points right I experienced imaging, control and dynamics that I didn't even come close to with my passive system. Now I'm putting together a 2-way active frontstage with HAT L6 and L1pro drivers and can't wait to get things set up. I've never used the Legatia drivers but I've heard so many good things about them. To make a long story short I will probably never go back to passive unless finances or space requirements forces me to.


----------



## Sarthos (Oct 29, 2010)

I've had some good experience with tuning an active crossover for mids/tweets, then building a passive crossover to those specs once the tuning is adequate. That way you only use two channels of amplification, not 4.


----------



## davidebender (Dec 23, 2010)

Sarthos said:


> I've had some good experience with tuning an active crossover for mids/tweets, then building a passive crossover to those specs once the tuning is adequate. That way you only use two channels of amplification, not 4.


It is much harder to clip when you bi-amp though, as each channel outputs a simpler (and smaller) sinewave.

In a 3 way biamping the woofers is so much better, assuming you can electronic low pass them and electronic high pass the mids, that can be passive-connected with the tweets (mids and tweets sinewaves are way smaller then woofers, and they are much much easier to match in sensitivity)...


----------



## GTI-DNA (Nov 4, 2010)

Same dellema here, I am contemplating my first active system. Thing is, most HU won't do bandpass. I have a PG A202, and along with the Kenwood X995 I am getting ready to purchase, I could do it.

My current plan is to use the active x-over on the head to do Sub and HP (front output) to some 2 inch full range (Vifa) in pods on the dash. I will use the rear output of the head to the A202 in bandpass for something like Dayton RS 180's in door pods (almost like kicks). That way, I will have TA to each location.

Other thought would be use the HU to cross the sub, and use the HP on the front to the A202 running 2 way. That way the A202 low out would effectively be BP and the high out will be HP. I loose individual TA in this configuration, but it would be easier. Plus I could use the rear out for some rear fill if needed.

I would like to hear some feedback on which way is better.


----------



## Lorin (May 5, 2011)

I would agree that active is easier to do these days and can be very nice to use in initial tuning. To add to that, we have many more options amp-wise for multiple channels. That said, many of us that go "passive" tend to use the splitters that come with the component set. When last I used passive, I actually "built" my own passives and was much more pleased with the end result and sound. I believe a big difference can be obtained once you know where you want to be. I like the simplicity of fewer amps and have no issues using either passive or active (have one of each in my two cars). Once set up correctly, I wonder how many of us could tell the difference in a blindfolded, listening test?


----------



## emperorjj1 (Sep 10, 2008)

^^^ probably none. id bet on it so i can finish paying to get my active done


----------



## argetni (Jul 25, 2007)

which one would be better?


----------



## redbaronace (Sep 27, 2011)

Would go active but do not wish to spend more $$$ on equipment at the present


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 15, 2011)

I chose passive as I like to keep things simple! I am currently contemplating going active with processor but it means adding another amp and processor and then learning how to use it!
At the moment I'm running a simple one amp passive system comprising of a NAK CD400-Mosconi One 120.4-Hybrid Audio Clarus C5s and ID10 it's all installed no need to tinker with it if I find certain music a little bright I turn down the treble on the headunit one notch if I want more bass I turn up the sub on the headunit one notch it's all the control I need!
I'm planning some upgrades but will probably continue with a passive system as my install is for listening to not for spending hour adjusting and tinkering with listening for the perfect blend between components! I'm am considering adding a processor but with my limited knowledge it's more likely to complicate things And sound worse!

[email protected]


----------



## downwind4final (Oct 8, 2006)

Active with Imprint is simple. I won't ever go back.


----------



## Joehs (Apr 27, 2010)

Active is the way for me!


----------



## Elektrospeed (Nov 21, 2011)

For the moment, passive.


----------



## Elektrospeed (Nov 21, 2011)

downwind4final said:


> Active with Imprint is simple. I won't ever go back.


Are you using PXA-H100? I currently have one, but don't know if it's worth the bother...


----------



## dsauce16 (Feb 2, 2011)

I'm about to make the switch!! to bad school has been putting of my project for a couple months. active with ms8..hopefully it sounds wonderfulw


----------



## NRA4ever (Jul 19, 2010)

I like my active setup in my Ranger using the Alpine9887 crossover in my HU. My F250 has a active passive setup for now. My mid bass & sub are active. The tweeters & 4inch mids are passive till I find the right crossover or go to a 3 way setup instead of the 4 way I have now. The control of a active setup is great.


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

It took me a while after going active to get back to where I was when passive. Then I went from the Dyn Esotec to Esotar and felt like I started all over. Several months later I feel like I'm finally surpassing where I was with the old setup and its beginning to sound really good but going active at least for me was a step back at first.


----------



## coolassloserp (Oct 17, 2011)

I'd like to go active someday :]


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

coolassloserp said:


> I'd like to go active someday :]


Going active is easy... it's the tuning that's difficult  

Kelvin


----------



## coolassloserp (Oct 17, 2011)

subwoofery said:


> Going active is easy... it's the tuning that's difficult
> 
> Kelvin


Well I've got good ears to tune the way I like it. One thing I am missing is the money to switch to active lol. I'm also on stock oem head unit on an Acura so I've gottah do more research..


----------



## emperorjj1 (Sep 10, 2008)

lol im active but i wouldnt say i have good ears


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

coolassloserp said:


> Well I've got good ears to tune the way I like it. One thing I am missing is the money to switch to active lol. I'm also on stock oem head unit on an Acura so I've gottah do more research..


What kind of Acura?


----------



## coolassloserp (Oct 17, 2011)

BuickGN said:


> What kind of Acura?


You are "I Hate Cars" on Acurazine right?
Dude you're a legend on Acurazine. 
I've asked you for help before about the ID ctx I had last year.

My system has completely changed now tho..

Well I've got the navi 05 Acura TL.
Audiocontrol LC7 ---> Arc Audio KS 900.6 running Rainbow Vanadiums in the front and 12" IDQ.
Just bought the DLS A7 that is coming in next week from a diyma member here.


----------

