in a passive setup, the amplifiers also have to work harder because each amp amplifies the entire signal on all channels. this is because the crossover is implemented after the amplification stage, thus using more power and delivering less overall clean signal in the proper frequencies.

 

depends on the speaker set and installation.

Focal designes their speakers specifically in conjunction with their passive crossovers to work together flawlessly. Alot of other speaker companies design speakers using active crossover setups during the engineering THEN mash together some caps and coils on a board and ship it out. If your just putting the speakers in the doors in a pretty standard install you'd be hard pressed to notice any difference at all except for the 3db drop you get with 12db/octave passives.

With speakers mounted in custom locations however it's almost necessary to go active for it to all work right.

 

if it is a new set up and you are willing to work to set up the eq and do not need to think of set up time (active is the way to go )

but if youu just need it now passive

i was going to sell my suv so i ripped out my active set up out ,now i'm i'm thinking of adding it back in and using my rta

 

looks like active is winning...

 

Active is winning in opinions.... Most people do have use active crossover setups in passive systems as well.. Using a head unit or Amps high-pass filter before the passvie crossover to seperate mids/tweets.

Most subwoofers are only actively crossed over. going 100% active, IF you have the proper equipment to set it up is always better. using active crossovers for components when you don't have an RTA and are just going by ear, usually doesn't work out too great

 

^^all that matters is my ears...I don't care what the RTA hears. I can't see how passive can be better if both systems are crossed at the same point and with the same slope???I can see them sounding differently, and maybe to some the passive will sound better(some types of distortion sound good), but from an accuracy point of view, there's no way the passive can be more accurate...ergo it's low fi compared to the active.

 

One more vote for active...... More detailed in my ears.

 

Even though I voted for passive, I agree that active is better . . . but it costs more - another amp and a pricey processor . . . I'm on a tight budget so passive is what mine needs to be.

Perhaps a second poll should be in order - not just about preferences, but what are you ACTUALLY running.

 

Well, I have done both. I gotta say, changing my amp to a substantially better amp made more difference than any difference from passive to active. Better cleaner power in my opinion makes MUCH more difference.

 

Just to clarify. I changed from a couple of well renowned monoblocks to an old Orion XTR200 amp. Holy Cow! People should really spend a little more money on good quality amplifiers. Worth much more than processing can accomplish.
Just my 2 cents worth.