Passive vs Active?!?!
 

could someone explain to me the difference between a Passive and active component set-up (lamens terms please)? which is better?:dunno:

Active modifies the signal before the amp and passive modifies the signal after the amp.

Active to me can sound better for a few reasons.
1)It is more flexible and offers more tuning potential
2)Active is not prone to work differently during use and in different heat conditions like one could see in a passive set up.

Of course going active requires more amplifier channels and often times less overall power going to individual speakers.

It has been my experience that active has always sounded better.

that and if you do not know what you are doing with it you and make it sound like crap fast

i'm going active this yr but i mite let someone set it for me until i know how to set it up

Actually, unlike an EQ, it is pretty easy to set up IMO. start up by looking into what your component set's passive xover is at and go from there.

In my case I am using an PG mx3i, its not very precise like a digital unit, so I really cant know exactly at what frequency the slope begins but I still get good results.

http://memimage.cardomain.net/member...17_46_full.jpg

I can't live without active x-over!:D

i did the A/C DQXS

so the Focal 165V2's are passive and in order for me to go active i would need a cross-over (such as the A/C DQXS) running before the RCA's go into the amp?!?!

could any/all speakers be active and passive (if set up correctly)?

could i get my Focal 690 CA's and Focal 100CV's to be active if i get an active cross over?

thanks
mt

To run active you need one amplifier channel for each speaker. You then use whatever kind of processor you want to crossover/filter what the speakers are playing instead of using passive crossovers.

You also lose nice features like tweeter protection, impedance correction, aka whatever is in your passive crossovers.

I went active because i didn't like the crossovers that came with my speakers. The tweeter protection was kicking in too soon, making them sound muddy and i needed them louder. I realize i could kill my tweeters very easily, but i'm willing to take the chance. Then i'll have a good excuse to upgrade. :)

with active set ups, you don't need impedance correction as that's one of the main benefits of going active. As far as tweeter protection, depending on your active cross over point, you can always put a cap that crosses the tweeter at a much lower point as a back up precaution. I've never lost a tweeter actively (or passively for that matter), and you can usually have a steeper slope for your cross overs which protect your tweets better...mine are at least 18db, sometimes as high as 30 db. See below for a link that compares them, scroll down to #84 on the right side.

http://www.bcae1.com/

Thanx everyone!

it seems like Active is geared more to the audiophiles that know what they are doing. unfortunately that is not me (not yet at least) but im willing to try it out, once i get enough funds!

I will post anoher thread when i try the Active XO in the near future


thanx
mt

^ Actually, unless you use the passives that come with the speakers, it takes far more talent and knowledge to construct and tune passive crossovers than using an active crossover. Active is easy.

I find merits in either type of crossover.

^^totally agree, passive can sound just as good, and can be cheaper and easier to get going with (if you use the ones that came with the comps). I like active mainly because of the tweaking capabilities...just love to mess with things!!

I use the PG MX2 for my components. What i meant to mention in my earlier post is that i use the HPF built into my alpine to cut off the low end at 100 hz. Most 2 way component systems don't like low frequencies and thier passive crossovers might protect them from the really lows.
So, If you go active, don't forget to protect your mid-bass as well.

The good thing about going active is the flexability, and i know some might not understand that, so here's some examples.
I bought MXT black gold components with passive crossovers.
Didn't like that, so i got an active crossover and another amp, one for each door. That was better, but i didn't like the dash speakers running off the deck, so I replaced them, and ran them in paralell with my door tweeters.
Next car, new setup. I bought Image dynamics mid-bass and Kaption 4" 2- ways. Active crossover, alpine amps, bass blocker caps for LPF. That was pretty good, till the car was stolen and robbed.
Got the car back, new system again. This time i used JL 6" woofers for midbass and eclpise 3 way for mid-tweet-supertweet. That was the best sound i had up front.
New car, In this car i only had room for 6" and 1". Bought MBQ RCE-216 and used the passive crosover that came with them, because i was runing it off the factory HU. Now that i've got my alpine installed, i removed the passive crossover, use the PG active crossover, from my last car. It's ok, but i still need more sound. I'm considering replacing, or adding pillar tweeters.

passives may be cheaper because you don't need the extra amplifier channels... but as mentioned not long ago biamping can increase effective power two fold, which may ofset that......

Iam also sure a decent 3way crossover can probably be had for $100... and I can attest that a good pair of high power passives can cost that or even much more

most mainstream stuff that comes with component sets is crap IMHO... and I generally build my own suited to specific woofers and tweeter of choice.... (unless I know I am getting something good from a prefab set)


one advantage of passives is that the drivers are usually less prone to being blown up by overzelous use....

But the panacea of audio reproduction has got to be multichannel setups with digital crossovers......


that probably isn't going to come cheap either :ohwell:

Active has it's merits... but show me the high end home systems with 8 channels of amplification for the fronts with active crossovers.

Active is useful in a car because it's such an unideal environment.

^^exactly, you use the right tools for the job. In a car, frequency response can be very uneven, so you need a tool that can correct or compensate for this and other problems that you would not encounter in a typical home environment. That is active's forte, adjustability, smoother response, and accurate cross over points that are not affected by frequency induced impedance changes. Home audio systems have a much more friendly environment, and as such rarely requires all the corrective measures that mobile audio systems do. IMHO.

Id say you are blurring crossover functions in with those of an EQ.....

passives have the same problems in all fields of audio reproduction IMO....

Yup, lots of high end home stereos come preped for bi-amping. Except now they call then A/V Receivers.
My Pioneer 1015 has 7 amps in it. You can run 5.1 surround with 2 amps for each of the front speakers, built in adjustable bi-amp crossovers. That's not even the elite series which has nore functions.