[jtwrace]

As I tried to suggest in my last post to this thread, theory is NOT what was requested. Jason is asking for experience from members who have actually changed from passive to active and vice versa. What did you learn? What did you prefer? And why? That sort of thing.

Therefore, I feel sure in what I'm saying. He's a practical, pragmatic guy so I'm sure he's not just asking for speculation. He wants to know which approach you preferred and why you chose it over the alternative.

If you have never tried both active and passive crossover systems in the same pair of speakers, he is not talking to you.

Thanks!   

[konut]

I have done this with 3 different pairs of speakers. The 1st pair were Magnaplanar Tympani I-Ds. They shipped with built in regular speaker level passives but also came with an external line level passive at 800hz. I don't know what the slopes were. There was a 3db insertion loss with the PLLXO which was not a problem as my preamp at the time took care of the difference . There was no question the bi-amped config was more linear and dynamic, particularly because that setup allowed me to use 2, Crown DC300As, strapped in mono, and a McIntosh 2300, for a total of 2kw of power. This setup was not hard to implement just requiring extra cabling.
        The next experiment was with 2 pair of Optimus LX4s that Radio Shack was blowing out. These are shoe boxed size speakers with a 4" kevlar woofer and monopole Lineaum tweeter. Dick Olsher had publish an article about how to change the stock internal xover for a substantial improvement in performance. Stock the woofer ran wide open and the needless to say the improved Xover transformed these into some pretty remarkable micro-monitors. I used premium parts and have the parts list around here somewhere if you're really curious. I then tore apart the speakers again taking out the improved xover and using a Behringer CX2300 electronic xover powered 2 pairs of the LX4s for another gain in performance. The change was not nearly as dramatic as the improved passive, but did net in improved dynamics and a smoother xover region.
          The last experiment was with 2 pairs of Dynaco 25XLs I found in rough shape at a thrift store. They worked just fine with the internal passive, but when I bypassed the stock xovers and used the CX2300 they really opened up and sounded splendid. They were fugly as the cabinets were all beat up and the wires to the drivers were coming out though the aperiodic vent on the front.
          I have never tried a digital xover implementation. If you want my opinion regarding the pros and cons regarding the differences in passive vs active I would make these observations.

1. Unless you are willing to devote a significant amount of time designing or changing a speaker to active and are ready for the increased complexity of implementation, do not undertake this endeavor. THIS POINT CANNOT BE OVER EMPHASIZED! The only reason I had any degree of success was that I was extremely lucky that the drivers I was using lent themselves to an electronic xover config.

2. Without a commitment to a thorough testing rig, results will not be optimal and are most likely to be very frustrating. THIS POINT CANNOT BE OVER EMPHASIZED!

3. Passive speaker level xovers designed by a first rate engineer, taking the strengths and weaknesses of an overall design into consideration using first rate components, will come within a hairs breath of giving the level of quality of an active design.

If I could start from scratch, sell all the gear I have now and do it over, I would buy powered monitors by one of the top tier makers like PMC, Klein + Hummel, Adam, etc. I'm tired of fooling around and just want to listen to some music. 
       

[cheap-Jack]

Hi.

quote author=BobRex link=topic=104175.msg1062675#msg1062675 date=1331232253]
(1) You've made this claim before, that according to your ears a passive sounds better.  What actives did you listen to in coming to that conclusion?

(2) Didn't you just state something about staying civil?  That didn't last long.

(3) You have previously stated that you removed the crossover and placed it into a separate box in order to reduce crosstalk.  Can you site a reference that defines this crosstalk, defines the minimum length required to "avoid" it, and what frequencies are affected?

(4) I remember about removing crossovers is based upon eliminating the harsh vibratory environment of the speaker box.  This is based upon the theory that caps can become microphonic and then distort the signal.

(5) I don't recall anybody (except you) claiming that the reason is to reduce / eliminate crosstalk.  Think about it this way - A simple 2 way, crossed over at, say, 2K, with a first order crossover will have a bass driver that responds to 30Hz and 3KHz (and beyond, but that's enough for this example.) Will those two extremes create crosstalk? If so, then why not run separate wires for those too

6) No not all electrical componenets add phase shift in the audible range.  You can create bandwidth so far beyond audible that the phase shift is essentially non-existent.  Oh, resistors don't shift phase

(7) PS:  Some of us have been to school and studied electrical theory beyond the radio handbook.  May I suggest you consider that.
[/quote]



Finally I can read some nice meaningful questions that deserve good answers.

(1) Yes, I auditioned a pair of Genelec 1037 studio monitor in my friend's home, made by a Finland manufacturer specialized in recording studios monitors since 1978.

It is a 3-way active design with built-in X-overs & power amps for 12" woofer (180W), 5" mid (120W) & 1" dome tweeter (120W).
Tagged for Stg Pd 2,540=USD4,000, it gets 126dB/1.7M sensitivily & FREE field response: 37Hz-21KHz (+/-2.5dB).

Impressive history background & specs, right?  It may sound good to many people, but to me - only so so.  Instead of sitting at my favourite 11th row centre seat in a concert hall, I found myself seated at the front row centre - way way too upfront, too overwhelming, lacking the air & space of a live performance. Yes, It may sound like a splendid curtain raiser, but I don't want a rock concert in home.

Mind you, my friend already used an Audio Research tube preamp & CD player. No micky mouse stuff.

So given such studio standard active monitors, where not many DIYers can build anything come close. Should I still worry about active loudspeakers????

(2) Click to Audio Asylum DIY tube forum you will see how real fights & mud  slingings read like.  Yet, not very often foul langauge posted there as it is prohibited by the owner & moderators there

(3) Passive bi-wiring using 2 pairs of cables parallel running from the amp O/p terminals to the loudspeakers I/P terminals, one pair connected to tweeter terminals & the other pair to woofer terminals.

Such parallel running cables have been criticized as LF & HF signals running along 2 pairs of cables will cause interference or so called "cross-talk". Not good enough as active bi-amping.

Maybe for this reason,  a few loudspeaker manufacturers produced loudspeakers with OUTboard X-over so that the X-over box can be placed behind the amps to shorten the Lf & HF common cable frun from the
amp to the X-over.

(4) (5) Yes, BUT but I think capacitor vibraton is not such a big issue to have the whole X-over to move out of the box as such micro vibratons can easily damped out inside the loudspeaker box.

(6) If you want to nit-pick, may I quote Radiontron Desginers Handbook where realworld resistors ALL get capacitance & inductance, & are therefore phase shifting.

(7) Radiotron Designer's Handbook (1,433 pages)  was written jointly by engineers & scholars with doctor & engineering degrees. I received formal electrical engineering education with decades of electrical enginering experience, but I still read it up as my bible of electronics.

c-J

[doug s.]

"I auditioned a pair of Genelec 1037 studio monitor in my friend's home, made by a Finland manufacturer specialized in recording studios monitors since 1978.
It is a 3-way active design with built-in X-overs & power amps for 12" woofer (180W), 5" mid (120W) & 1" dome tweeter (120W).
Tagged for Stg Pd 2,540=USD4,000, it gets 126dB/1.7M sensitivily & FREE field response: 37Hz-21KHz (+/-2.5dB).
Impressive history background & specs, right?  It may sound good to many people, but to me - only so so.  Instead of sitting at my favourite 11th row centre seat in a concert hall, I found myself seated at the front row centre - way way too upfront, too overwhelming, lacking the air & space of a live performance. Yes, It may sound like a splendid curtain raiser, but I don't want a rock concert in home."
- so, it is your preference for a mid-hall presentation vs the front row presentation on the active genelecs, that you did not like?  does this mean it is inferior per-se?
- did you hear this speaker designed by the mfr in a passive iteration? ie: as the original poster posited - did you compare passive to active, for the same speaker?  if not, your comments, regardless of your findings, are meaningless in a "passive vs active" context, w/the same speakers.

"(2) Click to Audio Asylum DIY tube forum you will see how real fights & mud  slingings read like.  Yet, not very often foul langauge posted there as it is prohibited by the owner & moderators there."
- so, it is ok to be a rude f**k, as long as the rudeness is ok by your standards...   

"(3) Passive bi-wiring using 2 pairs of cables parallel running from the amp O/p terminals to the loudspeakers I/P terminals, one pair connected to tweeter terminals & the other pair to woofer terminals.
Such parallel running cables have been criticized as LF & HF signals running along 2 pairs of cables will cause interference or so called "cross-talk". Not good enough as active bi-amping.
Maybe for this reason,  a few loudspeaker manufacturers produced loudspeakers with OUTboard X-over so that the X-over box can be placed behind the amps to shorten the Lf & HF common cable frun from the amp to the X-over."
-  several loudspeaker mfr's offer as an upgrade an active option for their passive speakers - vmps, paradigm, atc, selah audio, to name a few.  maybe because it is superior to passive, it is for this reason, that these manufacturers offer this active option?  and, have you ever considered that many mfr's produce speakers w/outboard x-overs, as this makes it easier for the owners to upgrade, by going active, w/o having to get inside the speakers to bypass the x-overs?

c-j, what is about to follow is not a rude insult, but simply an accurate description of how you come across on this forum.  (yes - you are entitled to your opinions - like a$$holes, everyone has them.):

the way you present your opinions here on a/c is ignorant, arrogant, insulting and pathetic.

ymmv,

doug s.

[JDUBS]

I had Yorkville Unity speakers in stock form which were great, but I always thought there was room for improvement.  I bought a DEQX 2.6P with Earthworks m30 mic and modified the cabinets for full active duty (added 1 Speakon to the two already present on the back, pulled the crossovers, directly wired drivers to Speakons).  Did the pseudo-anechoic measurements with the DEQX and Earthworks mic.  Setup crossover points to replicate the stock Yorkville (300hz and 1250hz) but increased the slope to 8th-order.

All in, a very worthwhile experiment.  Dynamics and overall coherence increased, substantially.

-Jim

[Russell Dawkins]

Hi Jim, do you mean DEQX 2496? What did you use as a crossover - the DCX 2496?

[jimdgoulding]

"I auditioned a pair of Genelec 1037 studio monitor in my friend's home, made by a Finland manufacturer specialized in recording studios monitors since 1978.
It is a 3-way active design with built-in X-overs & power amps for 12" woofer (180W), 5" mid (120W) & 1" dome tweeter (120W).
Tagged for Stg Pd 2,540=USD4,000, it gets 126dB/1.7M sensitivily & FREE field response: 37Hz-21KHz (+/-2.5dB).
Impressive history background & specs, right?  It may sound good to many people, but to me - only so so.  Instead of sitting at my favourite 11th row centre seat in a concert hall, I found myself seated at the front row centre - way way too upfront, too overwhelming, lacking the air & space of a live performance. Yes, It may sound like a splendid curtain raiser, but I don't want a rock concert in home."
- so, it is your preference for a mid-hall presentation vs the front row presentation on the active genelecs, that you did not like?  does this mean it is inferior per-se?
- did you hear this speaker designed by the mfr in a passive iteration? ie: as the original poster posited - did you compare passive to active, for the same speaker?  if not, your comments, regardless of your findings, are meaningless in a "passive vs active" context, w/the same speakers.

"(2) Click to Audio Asylum DIY tube forum you will see how real fights & mud  slingings read like.  Yet, not very often foul langauge posted there as it is prohibited by the owner & moderators there."
- so, it is ok to be a rude f**k, as long as the rudeness is ok by your standards...   

"(3) Passive bi-wiring using 2 pairs of cables parallel running from the amp O/p terminals to the loudspeakers I/P terminals, one pair connected to tweeter terminals & the other pair to woofer terminals.
Such parallel running cables have been criticized as LF & HF signals running along 2 pairs of cables will cause interference or so called "cross-talk". Not good enough as active bi-amping.
Maybe for this reason,  a few loudspeaker manufacturers produced loudspeakers with OUTboard X-over so that the X-over box can be placed behind the amps to shorten the Lf & HF common cable frun from the amp to the X-over."
-  several loudspeaker mfr's offer as an upgrade an active option for their passive speakers - vmps, paradigm, atc, selah audio, to name a few.  maybe because it is superior to passive, it is for this reason, that these manufacturers offer this active option?  and, have you ever considered that many mfr's produce speakers w/outboard x-overs, as this makes it easier for the owners to upgrade, by going active, w/o having to get inside the speakers to bypass the x-overs?

c-j, what is about to follow is not a rude insult, but simply an accurate description of how you come across on this forum.  (yes - you are entitled to your opinions - like a$$holes, everyone has them.):

the way you present your opinions here on a/c is ignorant, arrogant, insulting and pathetic.

ymmv,

doug s.

Interesting.  Ya'll know your seat or row in a hall can pretty much be selected by your volume control.  This is my experience with speakers in an equilateral triangle out from the wall, anyway.  That fellow in the quotation marks probably wasn't give that option what with his friend all enthused and everything.

[brj]

(1) Yes, I auditioned a pair of Genelec 1037 studio monitor in my friend's home, made by a Finland manufacturer specialized in recording studios monitors since 1978.

It is a 3-way active design with built-in X-overs & power amps for 12" woofer (180W), 5" mid (120W) & 1" dome tweeter (120W).
Tagged for Stg Pd 2,540=USD4,000, it gets 126dB/1.7M sensitivily & FREE field response: 37Hz-21KHz (+/-2.5dB).

Impressive history background & specs, right?  It may sound good to many people, but to me - only so so.  Instead of sitting at my favourite 11th row centre seat in a concert hall, I found myself seated at the front row centre - way way too upfront, too overwhelming, lacking the air & space of a live performance. Yes, It may sound like a splendid curtain raiser, but I don't want a rock concert in home.

Mind you, my friend already used an Audio Research tube preamp & CD player. No micky mouse stuff.

So given such studio standard active monitors, where not many DIYers can build anything come close. Should I still worry about active loudspeakers????

Just to be clear, did you also hear the passive version of the same speaker (ideally in the same room with the same gear listening to the same music)?  Otherwise, that isn't a straight comparison of active vs. passive and doesn't help answer jtwrace's question - you simply heard a speaker you didn't like.

[JDUBS]

Hi Jim, do you mean DEQX 2496? What did you use as a crossover - the DCX 2496?

Hey Russell.  I had a DCX (Behringer) for a while but upgraded to a DEQX 2.6P (http://www.deqx.com/products4.php).  Its a significant step up from the Behringer.

The 2.6P was discontinued but it had similar functionality to the current 3.0.  I used the 2.6P as a stand-alone 3-way crossover with its 6 outputs going into 3 separate stereo amps.

-Jim

[Russell Dawkins]

Hey Russell.  I had a DCX (Behringer) for a while but upgraded to a DEQX 2.6P (http://www.deqx.com/products4.php).  Its a significant step up from the Behringer.

The 2.6P was discontinued but it had similar functionality to the current 3.0.  I used the 2.6P as a stand-alone 3-way crossover with its 6 outputs going into 3 separate stereo amps.

-Jim

Sorry - trigger finger too quick. I thought you were referring to the Behringer DEQ2496. I know the DEQX is a significant step up from Behringer - and wish I could afford one to play with!

[jtwrace]

I had Yorkville Unity speakers in stock form which were great, but I always thought there was room for improvement.  I bought a DEQX 2.6P with Earthworks m30 mic and modified the cabinets for full active duty (added 1 Speakon to the two already present on the back, pulled the crossovers, directly wired drivers to Speakons).  Did the pseudo-anechoic measurements with the DEQX and Earthworks mic.  Setup crossover points to replicate the stock Yorkville (300hz and 1250hz) but increased the slope to 8th-order.

All in, a very worthwhile experiment.  Dynamics and overall coherence increased, substantially.

-Jim

Thanks for this feedback.     This (DEQX) is your current setup still? 

[Rclark]

If I end up giving this a go, I'd just plug in Davey's numbers into the dsp.

Maybe we can make a list of people running active with which speakers, and those who want to try, and have the same speakers, can have an easier in.

[jtwrace]

If I end up giving this a go, I'd just plug in Davey's numbers into the dsp.

Maybe we can make a list of people running active with which speakers, and those who want to try, and have the same speakers, can have an easier in.

It's not always that easy but you can certainly start a new thread for that.   

[JDUBS]

Thanks for this feedback.     This (DEQX) is your current setup still?

Nope, sold it.  There are better (IMO) computer-based solutions out there like Audiolense and Acourate - and they actually get updated, unlike the DEQX.  The DEQX is nice in that its stand-alone but this also makes it difficult to upgrade as technology advances.  For Mac, you can do crossovers / dsp correction with Fabfilter.  It works pretty well.

-Jim

[Rclark]

It's not always that easy but you can certainly start a new thread for that.   

 I might eventually. It would at least be some good training wheels.

[JohnR]

There is no "easy in" There is only one way to start with active speakers (or passive, if you are designing the crossover yourself): measuring equipment.

[Rclark]

It does sound like a lot of fun, and apparently the result can be quite superior...

[macrojack]

Rclark - I believe if you review this thread you will find that everyone who has actually done this active speaker thing says it was a lot of work. Your belief that it would be fun stands in contradiction of numerous testimonials.

You also seem to think that you will hitchhike on the back of others who have sweated to learn  how this process is accomplished. That is apparently what you were hoping for when you suggested a data bank.

My answer to you is simple: If you want to benefit from the work of others without contributing any creativity or enterprise, buy a finished product and pay the designer for his efforts. I found out the hard way that active speaker design was over my head.

Since you do not have the experience requested by the OP, you are unable to provide the testimony he is seeking. I trust you understand that. An occasional request for clarification is not a problem but constant intercession to the point of behaving like head cheerleader and master of ceremonies is unnecessarily intrusive and counterproductive. Please climb in the backseat and pay attention from there.

[JDUBS]

Rclark - I believe if you review this thread you will find that everyone who has actually done this active speaker thing says it was a lot of work. Your belief that it would be fun stands in contradiction of numerous testimonials.

You also seem to think that you will hitchhike on the back of others who have sweated to learn  how this process is accomplished. That is apparently what you were hoping for when you suggested a data bank.

My answer to you is simple: If you want to benefit from the work of others without contributing any creativity or enterprise, buy a finished product and pay the designer for his efforts. I found out the hard way that active speaker design was over my head.

Since you do not have the experience requested by the OP, you are unable to provide the testimony he is seeking. I trust you understand that. An occasional request for clarification is not a problem but constant intercession to the point of behaving like head cheerleader and master of ceremonies is unnecessarily intrusive and counterproductive. Please climb in the backseat and pay attention from there.

Nicely said.

-Jim

[sts9fan]

Macro/guys,
Conversations evolve. This means that after nine pages of posts the exact question of the OP may not be the topic being addressed any more.  This is natural. Maybe you never move on when talking in person but I do.  Some people are new at this and get excited.