Active vs passive crossover
I think most of forumers in this plaftorm know what are active/passive crossover (essentially crossover before/after the amplification) and understand the pros and cons of them. Some if not all might even agree the best sound reproduction solution is active crossover with DSP. But, my question is, why the vast majority of companies in this industry still chooses the passive route.
@erik_squires"best sounding is not how I would universally classify ACTIVE crossovers." I got this part. Maybe you had experience (A/B comparison) with it and I am not going to dispute that. But why the complexity and the desire to avoid an extra A/D, D/A conversion step are important "negatives?" Why does that become "negatives"? I thought being able to avoid A-D-A in the passive crossover greatly helps preserve the quality of signal. Maybe you know something that I don't... |
@fiesta75, can you install in-line fuse to the wire if you concern about it? Might need to be selective with the quality of fuse and holder. I have not tried it but some people bypass the fuse in the passive crossover and get the speakers to sing with more clarity treble and tighter bass. |
In term of the cost and simplificity of the architecture, I respectively disagree with the passive crossover system is the lesser of the dual when it is applied in the industry. Think about it, the active crossover/DSP/EQ unit has been multi-channel ready and could house, say, 3-way (6 channels) plus subwoofer, in one-box IF the internal DAC is in Hi-Fi quality. This will eliminate the need for the multi-channel DAC module. Also, as an additional benefit, the DSP/EQ module enables one to perform room acoustic correction. You would need purchase and add that into the passive system. When it comes to amplification, the multi-channel PAs can be customized based on the customer’s need just like Emotiva does. Even you have preferences in terms of selecting different PA for each signal frequency spectrum, the power requirement of each P.A. would no longer necessarily be as needy and costly as a single PA serving the full-range frequency. For example, a good 20-30 watts PA should suffice to drive tweeters (2/5kHz - 20 kHz) to sing sweetly. A good 50 wpc and >100 wpc class A/B or D should be prenty to drive midranges (200Hz-2/5kHz) and woofers (40Hz-200Hz). The amplication modules do not need to be manufactured by the venders and, instead, purchased by the individuals to their satisfaction as long as they meet the specification. Note that, in today’s high-end Hi-Fi world, it is quite common that audiphiles purchase expensive monos or multiple stereo amp of enormous power to support their full-range speakers already. Finally, when it comes speakers, as you know, they just need to be wired directly from the PA at the multiple terminals. If you are concerned about lack of protection then adding in-line quality fuses to the wires or terminals should resolve the issue. Therefore, overall, I really do not think the active crossover system will necessarily be more costly or complex than the passive couterpart. It is just the matter of taking paradigm shifts in concept, implemention and business models to make it reality. I am confident that, if you build it, "they" will come. |
