Experience with Passive vs Active Crossover

jtwrace · « **on:** 3 Mar 2012, 01:13 am »

Who has first hand knowledge of trying both on the same speaker? Did they measure the same? Sonically better, worse or the same? What did you use for your active? miniDSP, DEQX???

Speedskater · « **Reply #1 on:** 3 Mar 2012, 01:51 am »

The big trick is making them identical. It takes a lot of skill. It's more than just picking a frequency and a slope.

Rclark · « **Reply #2 on:** 3 Mar 2012, 09:59 am »

Skill or practice? Is it something anyone can do?

JohnR · « **Reply #3 on:** 3 Mar 2012, 11:31 am »

Is this a "which sounds best" question, or a "which should I do" question?

jtwrace · « **Reply #4 on:** 3 Mar 2012, 12:03 pm »

Quote from: JohnR on 3 Mar 2012, 11:31 am

Is this a "which sounds best" question, or a "which should I do" question?

More of a "which is better" in your opinion question. I want real life experience with it not what I've read re-linked to me.

JohnR · « **Reply #5 on:** 3 Mar 2012, 12:23 pm »

If you want real-life experience, then is it time to get started doing it yourself?

jtwrace · « **Reply #6 on:** 3 Mar 2012, 12:27 pm »

Quote from: JohnR on 3 Mar 2012, 12:23 pm

If you want real-life experience, then is it time to get started doing it yourself?

Are you being sarcastic or serious? If the latter, I'm thinking about it but wanted to get some feedback before I spend the time and money.

JohnR · « **Reply #7 on:** 3 Mar 2012, 12:42 pm »

Well, it's not about which is better, but which one you get the best results with. Personally, I find DSP a lot easier than passive. Then again, I never spent the time to properly learn how to design passives.

macrojack · « **Reply #8 on:** 3 Mar 2012, 12:53 pm »

Jason - As you know, I was using an XTA speaker management system on my 2-way horn hybrid system. Despite having it set up (by ear) by a prominent and experienced professional sound guy, I never really felt that it was truly optimized. That suspicion, combined with a desire to simplify the system, prompted me to commission Bill Woods to design passive networks for me.

The results are great and, while I may have given up something in the way of macrodynamics, I'd have to say that the trade off for silent background, simplicity and confidence in the set-up were well worth it to me.

The only factor that couldn't be compensated in the passive design was time delay between drivers which I would address by moving my horn forward about 15 inches, if I wasn't just too lazy. Which brings me to the point of obsession. I lost mine somewhere along the way. I consider what I have now to be spectacular but I'm certain that there must be some way to make it better. I just don't care enough to meddle further.

No measurements were ever taken - so I may not be answering your question at all.

jtwrace · « **Reply #9 on:** 3 Mar 2012, 01:10 pm »

Quote from: JohnR on 3 Mar 2012, 12:42 pm

Well, it's not about which is better, but which one you get the best results with. Personally, I find DSP a lot easier than passive. Then again, I never spent the time to properly learn how to design passives.

If one gets better results is there no direct correlation to it sounding better? If it measures better it should sound better. Right?

JohnR · « **Reply #10 on:** 3 Mar 2012, 01:18 pm »

keenween · « **Reply #11 on:** 3 Mar 2012, 02:21 pm »

I relate...an active 2way (minidsp) is a project I've had on my mind. I have no speaker design experience, and I think with my background I would feel comfortable learning active or passive for a first diy speaker.

I always read a lot of posts of once you go active this and that sort of thing...not much feedback on the appreciable results in specific. I read a lot of the speakers now get out of music's way sort of thing. Its hard to mentally correlate those comments as opposed to feedback like greater detail, better imaging. The active guys get me interested though because they seem to relate they now have more enjoyment of their speakers.

I don't have a lot of money to play around with so I tend to research things out before I go down a purchasing path.

dm · « **Reply #12 on:** 3 Mar 2012, 02:22 pm »

Hopefully it is not bad form to crosspost to another forum. But I went down the path from stock to improved passive crossover to fully active crossover with the minidsp. Note that in my setup I spent a fair amount of time measuring the difference using REW between the passive and active.

You can read about it here:

Improved passive crossover:
http://db.audioasylum.com/mhtml/m.html?forum=mug&n=171078

Going active crossover:
http://db.audioasylum.com/mhtml/m.html?forum=mug&n=184970

Speedskater · « **Reply #13 on:** 3 Mar 2012, 02:35 pm »

One neat thing about some DSP active crossovers is that you can program in several different crossover alignments as different scenes. Then you have someone else randomly select a scene and you can quickly audition it without the expectation bias.

FredT300B · « **Reply #14 on:** 3 Mar 2012, 03:34 pm »

I built a pair of Audio Karma Econowaves using Eminence Delta 12LFA woofers and Selenium D220Ti compression drivers with Dayton Audio H6512 waveguides. The enclosure is a 4 cu ft bass reflex.
http://fredt300b.smugmug.com/Hobbies/Speakers/132721_kcDVmw#!i=1430676119&k=gHJQx7t

I used the Pi Speakers 3Pi passive crossover. Parts used included Zantzen air core inductors, Dayton metallized polypropylene caps and Dayton non- inductive resistors. After listening to this speaker for a few months I decided to go active.

The passive crossover was replaced with two Emotiva UPA2 stereo amps (one per speaker) and a dbx DriveRack PA+ speaker management system. http://www.parts-express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?Partnumber=246-171

The active dsp crossover offers a great advantage in fine-tuning the speaker. I used the PE Omni Mic system, with the mic set on axis about four feet from one speaker. This enabled me to watch the frequency response graph and listen at the same time as I tried various combinations of crossover frequencies and slopes. The PEQ feature of the dbx makes it easy to set a tweeter PEQ to compensate for the 3dB/octave rolloff of a waveguide. The delay feature makes it possible to adjust the crossover frequency null so it occurrs well above and below the vertical-axis listening position. I also added a subwoofer (TC Sounds Epic 12" with Dayton 500 watt plate amp) crossed to the Econowave woofers at 80hz with a 4th order slope.

The sound with the active crossover was much better than the passive. For the tweeter, think in terms of upgrading from the Dayton caps to $100 teflon caps. Removing the deep bass from the woofers improved the midrange. But realistically, this added a lot of complexity and cost to the system, and whether you're willing to do this depends on your budget and your tolerance for complexity.

For me it was worth the cost and added complexity, and based on my experience with this relatively inexpensive system I decided to build a pair of very large actively crossed bi-amped line arrays. This project is in progress. http://fredt300b.smugmug.com/Hobbies/The-DR912a-Line-Array-Speakers/21201321_b8FFDH#!i=1589877607&k=f7rFd45

blutto · « **Reply #15 on:** 3 Mar 2012, 04:36 pm »

Quote from: jtwrace on 3 Mar 2012, 01:13 am

Who has first hand knowledge of trying both on the same speaker? Did they measure the same? Sonically better, worse or the same? What did you use for your active? miniDSP, DEQX???

...have gone from very good passive x-overs to an active systems and while I have stayed active the passive systems do have their merits and can't be dismissed out of hand...( this experiment performed on several different speaker systems )

...the big advantage of the passive system is in dealing with problem drivers...notching out unwanted response issues, and similar problems, is easier when done passively...and you have a better chance to produce a smoother overall response...( and just to make thing even more complicated there is also the possibilities of hybrid systems that are part active part passive that can be very effective...but potentially time consuming because of the passive component )

...the active system, if used with well behaved drivers is killer...wicked punch...great control...and is relativelly quick to get right....

...BTW we tried several digital systems that were very flexible in application but never ended up sounding as good as either the passive or the analog active system we settled on ( which, btw, is a Bryston...and which based on my experience, though admittedly limited, is highly recommended )

...so, bottom line, the answer may be dictated by your driver choice...and your pocket book since active requires more shiny baubles, such as x-overs, amps and cables, which as we know, can become very expensive very quickly...

Cheers

blutto

jimdgoulding · « **Reply #16 on:** 3 Mar 2012, 04:48 pm »

J Gordon Holt wrote he thought the active ATC 20's (?) were one of the finest loudspeakers he had ever heard. It may have been the 40's. I seem to remember he said that they were THE finest. I tried to find the review, but couldn't. You may have better luck. I have active speakers in my system with conturing capability.

It WAS the active 20's.

Tyson · « **Reply #17 on:** 3 Mar 2012, 05:29 pm »

I've run identical speakers both passive and active. Once you get the hang of it, there's nothing a passive can do that an active can't do just as well, or better. And usually a lot better. IMO, active beats passive, easily.

mjosef · « **Reply #18 on:** 4 Mar 2012, 05:52 am »

Quote from: jtwrace on 3 Mar 2012, 01:13 am

Who has first hand knowledge of trying both on the same speaker? Did they measure the same? Sonically better, worse or the same? What did you use for your active? miniDSP, DEQX???

No idea if my VMPS RM1 measured the same before and after I went active biamp.
Sonically, so much better biamped vs passive.
Old school analog electronic crossover, Marchand DIY XM1 modules.

JLM · « **Reply #19 on:** 4 Mar 2012, 10:47 am »

“J Gordon Holt wrote he thought the active ATC 20's (?) were one of the finest loudspeakers he had ever heard. …... I seem to remember he said that they were THE finest.”

I auditioned the Paradigm Active 20 ($1600/pair) versus Studio 20 ($800/pair) about 12 years ago. Same drivers/cabinet (2-way standmounts). No contest. Actives were much more dynamic, ruler flat frequency response, mind blowingly deep/full bass. (Just read reviews of active monitors used in studios.) It was an epiphany.

Too bad audiophile “straights” haven’t caught on.