Passive or Electronic Crossover

[psycho72 10+ year member]

I have heard from both sides that the other side ***** but that has come from sales people and your typical know-it-all who knows squat, so I thought I would pose the quesiton to you guys. And of course in my typical fashion, lets assume high quality passive and electronic crossover.

Click to read more...

 

[Acidburn 5,000+ posts]

what is your intended use of the cross over?

 

[psycho72 10+ year member]

Well basically I have an old Hifonics Callisto, which I used a long long time ago, which I was considering bringing out of the closet. I was thinking of adding some of those tiny titanium mids (or possibly some other 3.5-4" midrange-was looking at the MB Quart Q-mids) that desert has along with my existing components. The tweets and the mid would be relocated to improve imaging in my car, the 6.5's would take on midbass duties and get it's own amp, my woofs would remain the same (well the new ones that I get) and the electonic cossover would distro freqs to everything. Or I could simply use some hq caps and passive the whole system.

But really I just wanna know the in's and outs of each method of killing/distributing freqs.

 

[squeak9798 5,000+ posts]

Well, if you are comparing home-brewed passives vs. just going active; I'd advise to go active. Sure, there are calculators out on the web that will give you a guestimate of how to build the passive. But to really build a good, high quality, speaker and install specific passive crossover, it would require testing and design equipment that regular Joe's don't normally have access to. So, in cases like this, I'd advise you to just go active.

Now, if we are talking factory designed/built passives (that come with regular comp sets), then this is a toss-up. Passives can and do incorporate many, many things that active's don't have (such as tweeter protection, zobel networks, etc), and the passive's are specifically designed to optimize the speakers performance, etc etc. Plus, you can power the system with only 2 channels (one for L and one for R).

But, just because crossover points are optimized for the speakers it doesn't mean that they are optimized for your install //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif Every car and every setup is different, and these differences in installation setup and install enviornment will actually affect what crossover settings are "best". Sometimes it's better to underlap the crossover points. Sometimes it's befitting to have an overlap of the crossover points. With passives, you are stuck with whatever slope and crossover points are used. This is where the active's shine. You can select the most appropriate xover points for your install as well as level match each speakers. And if you pick the right active xover you can even change the xover slopes //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif Downside is you don't have all the fancy features (zobel, tweeter protection, etc) and that you need to have one channel for each speaker (3-way frontstage needs 6 channels of amplification).

So, in closing, they each have their advantages and disadvantages. But, in cases of home-brewed vs. active, I'd advise you to go active (and try to find an active xover w/ variable slope).

 

[squeak9798 5,000+ posts]

Wow....that was long. Hope it atleast helped then.... //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/biggrin.gif.d71a5d36fcbab170f2364c9f2e3946cb.gif

 

[maylar 10+ year member]

Yeah, what squeak said...

The passive crossovers that come with component sets are usually half the cost of the set. High precision components factory tuned for the characteristics of the specific drivers are hard to beat. But if you're going DYI, buying your own drivers and mix & match, it's way better to go active so you can adjust them.