mid bass?

[ejschultz 10+ year member]

The loss due to a cheap crossover can be taken into effect. The loss from a high grade passive crossover is normally so minute, neither you, nor most software, would be able to detect a difference.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

The loss due to a cheap crossover can be taken into effect. The loss from a high grade passive crossover is normally so minute, neither you, nor most software, would be able to detect a difference.

The quality is not the issue, the function is. The coil in a passive is meant to create resistance. Resistance creates heat. The purity of the copper, or composition of the adhesive, does not alter this.

Im not suggesting the loss is great, but it is a loss none the less. Efficiency is inarguably an advantage active systems maintain over their passive counterparts.

 

[ejschultz 10+ year member]

I understand that loss is loss. I'm not arguing that. Hear this though, if your speakers will reach their mechanical limit when a clean 50 WRMS is given to them and your amp is capable of a clean 70 WRMS, the loss introduced by the passive crossover could be compensated for by adjusting the amp, assuming the passive crossover is high quality and can handle the power without introducing distortion.

 

[jbizzle 5,000+ posts]

active is really expensive. u have to have a 4 channel amp, and spend $300-400 on an amp, active hu, or processor that can manage the speakers.
ill try and find a link explaining it more detailed

Sorry but you're wrong.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

I understand that loss is loss. I'm not arguing that. Hear this though, if your speakers will reach their mechanical limit when a clean 50 WRMS is given to them and your amp is capable of a clean 70 WRMS, the loss introduced by the passive crossover could be compensated for by adjusting the amp, assuming the passive crossover is high quality and can handle the power without introducing distortion.

Yes, we can certainly present a situation in which the losses from a passive xover network are easily compensated for.

 

[ejschultz 10+ year member]

So, in most cases, most losses can be compensated, making the assumption the amplifier used has the power readily available. With that being said, you would theoretically get the same output from either a passive or active setup, assuming you make the correct compensations, and assuming the crossovers can handle the power without heating up to the point of introducing distortion. I may be assuming a lot, but you'd also be assuming that the correct compensations would not be made, the amplifier doesn't have the power, and/or the crossovers cannot handle the amount of power it would take in order to make the compensation.

 

[Cruzer 10+ year member]

Sorry but you're wrong.

how do you manage your active setup then? 2 channel amp, stock head unit?

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

So, in most cases, most losses can be compensated, making the assumption the amplifier used has the power readily available. With that being said, you would theoretically get the same output from either a passive or active setup, assuming you make the correct compensations, and assuming the crossovers can handle the power without heating up to the point of introducing distortion. I may be assuming a lot, but you'd also be assuming that the correct compensations would not be made, the amplifier doesn't have the power, and/or the crossovers cannot handle the amount of power it would take in order to make the compensation.

Uhm, what? You said this originally: "Going active doesn't get you any more midbass than using a passive setup." I corrected you, and your rebuttal is that we can assume most amplifiers are larger than necessary, so your statement is actually still correct. I dont even know where to begin to point out the flaws in your logic.

 

[ejschultz 10+ year member]

...so your statement is actually still correct...

Exactly. With the proper compensations made, an active setup will not output anymore midbass than a passive setup. The only real benefit to an active setup would be the additional tuning options you would have. You do see my logic; you refuse to admit it.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

Exactly. With the proper compensations made, an active setup will not output anymore midbass than a passive setup. The only real benefit to an active setup would be the additional tuning options you would have. You do see my logic; you refuse to admit it.

Dude, you are reaching. Of course, any losses can be compensated for. The point is, there is a loss, which you initially denied. Quit trying so hard to look right, when you were wrong.

 

[ejschultz 10+ year member]

I never said, nor did I imply that there weren't any losses. Passive filters will absorb energy. That can be compensated for. With proper compensation, the output will be identical. You misunderstood my initial post. I'm not digging nor am I trying to make myself look correct. I'm not trying to argue you. We're on the same page, this time.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

I never said, nor did I imply that there weren't any losses. Passive filters will absorb energy. That can be compensated for. With proper compensation, the output will be identical. You misunderstood my initial post. I'm not digging nor am I trying to make myself look correct. I'm not trying to argue you. We're on the same page, this time.

Maybe I misunderstood you when you said active wont provide any more output. Because, all other things being equal, it certainly will...

Going active doesn't get you any more midbass than using a passive setup. An active setup will only give you more tuning options as far as T/A, phasing, levels, and EQing, depending on your processor/HU.

You clearly implied the ONLY benefit of running active was tuning flexibility, and further implied you wont receive any more output potential than a passive system. When I call you on it, you start talking about systems with overly large amplifiers to compensate for the losses of a passive system. It doesn't take a genius to see you back pedaling. Im not trying to call you out here, but the more I try to be reasonable with you, the more you try to imply you were right all along. You weren't. Period. It happens, get over it.

 

[MrSplorDie 10+ year member]

http://www.caraudio.com/forums/speakers/146726-active-vs-passive-attempt-me-explain.html
Definitely a good read. BTW, I'm active in my Caprice and passive in my Jeep. Both HUs I'm using are active capable.

How did you installed your components in your caprice?

 

[ejschultz 10+ year member]

How did you installed your components in your caprice?

Check out my build log in my sig. You'll see everything I did.

@audioholic

Alright, so I didn't mean to imply that using passive setups will give the same output as an active setup with everything being equal. Like I said before, in most installs I've done and in most I've seen, the amps have more power to offer than what the speakers can handle. I've chosen amps for all of my systems (at least for my front stages) to have a little more power than for what my speakers are rated. This way I have a little bit of headroom. I know there have been some debates on here about headroom and weather or not it's necessary. I don't know exactly how I feel about it, but I do choose my amps accordingly. Now, with your assumption, you are correct. With all else equal, the active system will provide a slight increase in output. With my assumption, I am correct. I see your side; see mine. I'm done "back pedaling". From your prospective, yes, I was incorrect.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

Check out my build log in my sig. You'll see everything I did.
@audioholic

Alright, so I didn't mean to imply that using passive setups will give the same output as an active setup with everything being equal. Like I said before, in most installs I've done and in most I've seen, the amps have more power to offer than what the speakers can handle. I've chosen amps for all of my systems (at least for my front stages) to have a little more power than for what my speakers are rated. This way I have a little bit of headroom. I know there have been some debates on here about headroom and weather or not it's necessary. I don't know exactly how I feel about it, but I do choose my amps accordingly. Now, with your assumption, you are correct. With all else equal, the active system will provide a slight increase in output. With my assumption, I am correct. I see your side; see mine. I'm done "back pedaling". From your prospective, yes, I was incorrect.

What did I assume exactly? Im not trying to be argumentative, Im genuinely curious where you think I assumed anything. None of my comments were based on the amplifier size being used, they were simply a fact-based comment that a cap 'n coil setup has unavoidable energy loses in the form of heat.

I look at our debate here as two people arguing whether or not a camaro is as fast as a corvette. Im the guy saying the corvette is faster, you are the guy saying a camaro is just as fast. When I explain the horsepower/weight differences that make that impossible, your reply is that every camaro you've ever worked on had power adders that increased its performance. Okay? That still does not change the topic we were discussing.

Cheers.