How good is the crossover in your loudspeakers?

@texbychoice wrote:

Wins in what specific technical and measurable ways?  Trade offs must be honestly identified and considered.  That is the only damn fact that matters.

Now suddenly measurements are a convenient step (i.e.: "Measurements do not tell the entire story")? Apart from perceived listening impressions (they still count, don’t they?), you have a purer ohm load when an amp channel (a dedicated one, no less) is looking directly into a driver’s terminals, avoiding the likelihood of large impedance swings and steep phase angles through a passive crossover and hereby providing for much better working conditions for an amplifier, with better driver control and lower distortion to follow. 

Buy two more similar amps for 3 way setup, eh?  So say I have a quality 100 Watt amp, so buy two more that would add several hundred dollars of cost.  That is a hypothetical that makes no sense to support the case for all active.  Conflating potential reliability facts with trouble sleeping is an illogical comparison.

There’s no "case for all active" to universally go by. Why would you impose specific terms for active to make sense, other than the potential for better sound quality or to whomever it applies? That’s on you, pal. 

The case for active, from my chair, is sound quality via outboard active configuration and high efficiency speakers where size, by and large, isn’t an issue. Whatever it takes, it takes. For others it may be convenience, simplicity (yes, you heard me right), small size, and even an overall lower price with a bundled, preassembled and -designed package.

The good thing about active is that of being able to make more efficient use of a given amplifiers performance envelope, and thus you can save money per unit and keep yourself from buying overbuilt, hugely expensive amps that would otherwise be needed with passively configured, heavy speaker loads. So, what may seem to be more expensive with the need for more amp channels actively to begin with, can turn out to be much less so than expected or even save you money eventually. 

The sleep remark was hardly to be taken in the literal sense, but merely a play on words to address your claimed issue with reliability.  

The more complexity is added, the more the entire system is at the mercy of the weakest link.  Cheap out on any item and the entire system does not achieve it’s potential.  

You’re making a problem where there needn’t be any. Added amp channels and a DSP in themselves don’t necessarily equate into introducing a weak link. Buying a cheaper, bundled active package on the other hand (not least subs with built-in plate amps) can be an issue where reliability goes, but as I pointed to earlier my advocacy is outboard active config., and this way any quality gear can be in the loop for a purchase decision, where reliability is no bigger issue than it is passively.

The core premise of active being cheaper, easier, better completely fails.  Pick any 2.  You can’t have all 3.

Says who? Why don’t you get your head around the fact that some, if not many of us actually pursue active from a sound quality measure first and foremost, without "cheaper and easier" being part of the primary incentive? 

Do your system as you see fit.  Personal preference extrapolated to claims based on broad generalization does not equate to a clear path for all to duplicate. 

Oh I do make my own system as I see fit. I hope you do too. We’re debating crossovers here, and I added my experience with a way to implement them to make their presence less of an issue in the signal path. Please note that amp to driver interfacing is but one part of many to be considered. I’m not implying it’s a ticket that in itself makes everything else magically fall into place, nor do I mean to impose my views on others. 

@gtscott wrote:

I had a system where I eliminated the passive crossovers and replaced them with a digital crossover, The biggest improvement I have heard over my 30 years doing this. Passive crossovers are using energy from the signal to create the crossover, I don't see how that can ever work accurately.

+1 

@toddalin wrote:

I don’t think this means what you think it means.

 

I think what is referred to is the power linearity over the frequency response and they show plots of the response for the three power levels and look at the response to see that it does not so as to throw the curve off by more than 1 dB.   Otherwise, why are the three curves not 10 dB apart for the three power levels?

Naturally the 3 curves for each their power levels are superimposed to easily show the difference power compression makes at higher SPL’s. It shows the 4435’s with dual woofers per cab have close to no power compression up to 100W, and both models show virtually no signs of power compression above 500Hz with 100W input.
It would be interesting to know whether the JBL models were passively or actively configured for the measurements, because if the former then the crossover itself could also be a co-contributor to frequency response changes at varying SPL’s. 

OTOH, I would think that depending on the "compatibility" of the components, lesser speakers would show far more "areas" of compression because some components just can’t "keep up" with others when the going gets tough.

The JBL’s of this segment perform admirably compared to most any typical, lower efficiency hifi speakers, and I have little doubt JBL can actually be trusted with their measured performance here. These speakers are meant to be used in a pro environment where these things matter. 

They say they are 10 dB apart, but that would infer NO compression and that’s just not the case.

There are variances, as can be clearly seen, not least below 500Hz with the 4430’s, albeit not much. We’re talking 4" voice coil, pole piece vented woofers of pro origin with 93/96dB sensitivity, and very high eff. compression drivers above. Such drivers are more resilient to compression issues. 

"JBL introduced the VGC products in an effort to reduce dynamic compression to even lower degrees and increase general power handling in the process. Figure 7 shows 1 watt and 100 watt superimposed compression curves for the JBL 2226H The curves show compression on the order of 1.5 dB over the range from 100 Hz to about 2 kHz, with virtually no compression at lower frequencies." 

Based on this, one would expect the 2234/2235 to exhibit more compression than the 2226H, though none of the literature states what it is.

With 100W input close to no power compression isn’t implausible with the 4430/4435’s and their non-VGC woofers. VGC makes a difference, yes, but this becomes more prevalent - i.e.: handy with close to max. outputs above 100W input with cinema and PA usage. By comparison the JBL monitors won’t be sitting that close to their performance ceilings. 

@texbychoice wrote:

@russbutton 

You provide an interesting alternative path that can work if one likes massive over-complication that introduces numerous paths to problems.

Explain "massive over-complication." You're replacing a passive crossover on the output side of the amp with an active ditto, so the interfacing complication/bottleneck introduced passively between the amp and speakers is removed and instead the crossover duties are placed prior to amplification on signal level. Yes, you'll have yourself another piece of hardware, but it's not simple added to the chain; to reiterate, you're also substracking a passive crossover, so the power transfer from a dedicated(!) amp channel to a driver is vastly improved and simplified in the process. 

As for the claimed "numerous paths to problems," what are they?

Unless big bucks are spent, the number of cheap, wide tolerance, low reliability components increases at least 10 fold over a passive crossover. 

A naturally larger low voltage component count on signal level vs a fewer high voltage ditto used in a passive crossover on the output side of the amp is not a comparable scenario as a marker with regard to its effect on sound quality. As in: it's not something you can simply determine with reference to the number of components used, but rather the more important factor is where and how in the chain either crossover option is implemented (if anything a higher component count has a bigger influence passively). Also note that on signal level you can set the filter values much more precisely, and they don't deviate one bit with varying output loads as they do passively. 

If spending a few hundred to improve a passive crossover is unreasonable, the russbutton solution is insanely costly. 

Not saying a passive crossover makeover for a moderate outlay can't do a difference or be worthwhile for a given someone, but the active option has to be assessed in a wider perspective on how you approach amp to speaker/driver interfacing and your sound reproduction goals ultimately. While active config. may lead to a bigger investment vs. a passive crossover path in a single setup context, it's also one that can enter a very different ballgame sonically and save you money in the long run. 

@texbychoice wrote:

Russbutton describes an active crossover providing signal to an amplifier for each driver.  For a three driver speaker, three separate amps required.  Six amps total for a typical 2 channel system.  That is increased complication. In no way is replacing a passive crossover with that an equal exchange.

Ask yourself what a passive crossover, not least a complex one, does with the amp to driver interfacing as it actually impedes with the power transfer with all that entails with lesser driver control. And then ask yourself what a dedicated, frequency limited amp channel directly connected to each driver section does by comparison. Any which way you want to bend this the former scenario is the real complexity and hindrance; not merely adding up on amp channel in parallel count actively for what’s already described. 

Numerous paths to problems include more connection points, more cabling, higher parts count=less reliable, multiple paths for EMI/RFI, matching amps to drivers, level adjustment for each driver to name a few. 

Forest for the trees; per earlier paragraph of mine, adding up on amp channels is just that, and they’re working less hard to boot - meaning they’re less likely to fail. Level adjustment actively is the far better and easier option vs. using resistors and trying to match driver sensitivity passively. And, paradoxically, why so many get riled up about amp matching actively boggles the mind. The real need for amp matching is with passively configured speakers, as the harder load they present to the amps makes the amps sound much more different with different speakers. Matching amps to drivers actively is a potential bonus, but no one tells you to. Using the same amp topology/brand top to bottom into the subs to my mind is the preferred scenario. 

The power transfer from amp to each driver is not vastly improved. 

Yes it is, the more so the more complex/load heavy the passive crossover.

A passive crossover does not consume unreasonable power as has been implied either.

Again, depending on the the complexity of the XO, it most certainly can.  

No doubt Class D amps will be recommended.  This recommended path is supposed to produce superior sound quality, right.  Six cheap Class D amps are the exact opposite of quality and reliability.  Better have a couple spares on hand at all times.

Outboard actively any amp topology can be had. Bundled active speakers usually resort to Class D amps, but they also come in different qualities where reliability needn’t be an issue. 

If an individual wishes to pursue active crossover, DSP, multiple amps, etc. that is just as acceptable as improving a passive crossover.  However, fact is the active path is not as simple or vastly superior as the claims made in this thread.  Pick your poison.

If you choose to go about a DIY-approach with active and filter settings, then no - it’s not plug and play. The fact of the matter is though that you have the more optimal outset with the amp to driver interfacing actively, and sitting in the listening with a laptop and doing filter settings on the fly is vastly preferred vs. running back and forth with a soldering iron replacing filter components. Pick the poison, or the nutritious meal that’s good for your tummy ;) 

@texbychoice wrote:

Passive crossover or all active can result in a system that measures well.  Measurements do not tell the entire story.  For those of us that have over the years tried many of the latest bright shiny audio gizmos or idea we know that fact all too well. 

Nothing new here (either). 

Separate amps for each driver is nothing new and revolutionary.  There are trade-offs for any approach.  

Right; active config. is nothing new nor revolutionary (nor is passive bi-, tri- or more-amping over speakers with existing passive crossovers, albeit a more well-known approach among audiophiles), but you could say that of other design choices that, while advantageous, are not generally implemented. Practically speaking the only trade-off with active is a higher electrical bill from the multitude of amps. 

Claiming an all active system to be superior is a broad generalization, not a universal truth. 

True, but with a proviso: there aren’t that many opportunities to make an apples-to-apples comparison between actively and passively configured speakers, because it’s about assessing a typically bundled active speaker design of one particular brand (usually with built-in Class D amps and a consideration for minimizing cost here) with a passive speaker design of another brand with a wildly varying combination of amp choices. Basically you’re left with buying into comparing completely different scenarios that aren’t that easily comparable coming down to a single aspect alone. 

To really assess the potential of active config. take the same speakers, strip them of their passive crossovers, add the required amp channels using a similar amp as the one used passively as a basis, add a high quality DSP, and have fully optimized filter settings implemented, aided by measurements and completed by ears from your preferred listening position. Then you’ll have a more true bearing, and in each of these cases and specific context where I’ve heard this happen, the active approach - not only to my ears - won by a mile, hands down. And what do I mean by "won by a mile"? A much better resolved, more dynamically astute, more transparent, more transiently clean/less smeared, more effortless, and tonally a more accurate and authentic presentation. 

Besides: my main intention was to point at the amp to driver interfacing, and how active wins out every day here. This is not debatable - indeed it’s a damn fact. With any design however there are many choices to be made, and the totality of those will determine the outcome. My advocacy is for outboard active configuration, because this way you can go about it more or less as you see fit - like you would passively. If however a preassembled and -designed bundled active speaker fits your bill and hits a home run, then you may have come by your solution all that much easier. 

Previously noted potential problems cannot be explained away by opinion.  Parts count increased by dozens and more interconnections decrease overall reliability and introduce new variables.  That is engineering fact that can be calculated. 

Come on. Let’s say you buy two more power amps similar to the one you already own for a 3-way active setup, add a high quality DSP (while stripping the passive crossover) and some extra IC’s and power cables - you mean to tell me you’d now have trouble sleeping because of reliability issues? Well, if you insist on placing obstacles in front of you to avoid going active or otherwise adding a few components (or just to be willful), by all means. But essentially the same could be leveled at those who’re buying a turntable with all that involves, a separate preamp, mono block amps or other. Like you said, measurements don’t reveal everything, and the same way holding a rigid stance on component count and how it pertains to sound quality and reliability can’t ever be the whole story.