Active or passive?

[Sq-NoOb 10+ year member]

going to be running focal 165vr3's in the front on a polk 500.4 amp focal 100vrs in the rear on a polk 200.4 also run though a RF 360.2....my question is would running these componenets active or passive be best? and how to wire an active set up?

Click to read more...

 

[fasfocus00 5,000+ posts]

why do ppl ask this, an active crossover and passive crossover do the same thing. yeah there are some crossovers that have a couple more features but that's really it. No real benefit from one over the other, it's mainly just personal preference.

BTW I run active in my front stage b/c I broke the crossovers and passive in the rear. also if someone is going to give some BS sound quality argument go check out a nice set of HT towers and see if it's active.

 

[Sq-NoOb 10+ year member]

o i wasnt even clear of the difference...but could you tell a diff in your front stages after switching to active?

 

[ciaonzo 5,000+ posts]

why do ppl ask this, an active crossover and passive crossover do the same thing. No real benefit from one over the other, it's mainly just personal preference.

Please do some reading and report back.
Active Crossovers Vs. Passive Crossovers

 

[sulin's baby 10+ year member]

id go active streaming right into the amp for the simple reason that ic can be adjusted much easier...just my two cents

 

[fasfocus00 5,000+ posts]

Please do some reading and report back.
Active Crossovers Vs. Passive Crossovers

so you are telling me that passive crossovers should not be used?

 

[ciaonzo 5,000+ posts]

so you are telling me that passive crossovers should not be used?

I have no idea how you managed to interpret it that way. Not in so many words, you stated there was no difference between using passive elements after amplification and active elements before amplification. I simply suggested that you might consider reading a little before you perpetuate any further misinformation.

 

[Sq-NoOb 10+ year member]

ok, it sounds like active is the way to go i guess, i have a slight wireing issue tho, since im useing 3-ways up front and only have a 4channel running them how could i wire in the tweeters, i know i deff want the woofer and mid on each side run to the amp (useing up the 4 channels)

 

[BlackMaxima 10+ year member]

i have no idea how you managed to interpret it that way. Not in so many words, you stated there was no difference between using passive elements after amplification and active elements before amplification. I simply suggested that you might consider reading a little before you perpetuate any further misinformation.

x2

 

[Blue Fury 10+ year member]

why do it when you're buying a set? You're likely to use the same points at the passive ones use, so why the extra work?

 

[fasfocus00 5,000+ posts]

I have no idea how you managed to interpret it that way. Not in so many words, you stated there was no difference between using passive elements after amplification and active elements before amplification. I simply suggested that you might consider reading a little before you perpetuate any further misinformation.

there is no real difference especially audible difference between the 2. using an active crossover or passive crossover is really just personal preference. the difference between the 2 are very minimal much less audible to the human ear. if the difference was that huge, all high end home theatre systems would use active systems. by telling me to read that article, the writer (and I assumed you b/c you referenced it) are biased towards active crossover networks.

 

[Blue Fury 10+ year member]

there is no real difference especially audible difference between the 2. using an active crossover or passive crossover is really just personal preference. the difference between the 2 are very minimal much less audible to the human ear. if the difference was that huge, all high end home theatre systems would use active systems. by telling me to read that article, the writer (and I assumed you b/c you referenced it) are biased towards active crossover networks.

I wouldn't stop there unless you want to sound obvious... it should be clear to you that they may be biased from experience (a pretty good reason).

 

[Sq-NoOb 10+ year member]

why do it when you're buying a set? You're likely to use the same points at the passive ones use, so why the extra work?

so, i should just go passive?

 

[ciaonzo 5,000+ posts]

there is no real difference especially audible difference between the 2. using an active crossover or passive crossover is really just personal preference. the difference between the 2 are very minimal much less audible to the human ear. if the difference was that huge, all high end home theatre systems would use active systems. by telling me to read that article, the writer (and I assumed you b/c you referenced it) are biased towards active crossover networks.

I chose that article because it came to mind quickly, and I thought others who were interested in this topic might benefit from it and possibly start seeking more information for themselves instead of letting people on this site fill their heads.
So you truly believe that there's no real advantage, either audible or measurable, to having the voice coil connected directly to the amplifier circuit rather than going through yet another series of reactive elements (inductors, resistors, and capacitors - Oh my!) before the voice coil (obviously also reactive) is connected to the amplifier circuit? I'm not trying to get down on you man, but if you believe that, you would benefit from further reading.

And simply because I wish to call you out on a particular topic, doesn't mean it's wise for you to assume that I have a bias toward one or the other. I regularly build my own passive networks and I believe both passive and active filters have their place and purpose, concerning both cost and performance. Either approach can potentially surpass the other where cost is involved, depending on what direction you wish to take things. There are very few, if any, passive networks that could potentially surpass the performance of an active setup when everything is done correctly. That's not including the massive flexibility that's inherent to an active setup.

See, with that you can now begin to assume that I may favor one over the other.

 

[JimJ 5,000+ posts]

there is no real difference especially audible difference between the 2. using an active crossover or passive crossover is really just personal preference. the difference between the 2 are very minimal much less audible to the human ear. if the difference was that huge, all high end home theatre systems would use active systems. by telling me to read that article, the writer (and I assumed you b/c you referenced it) are biased towards active crossover networks.

While I agree that there's no sonic difference between the two set up identically, the issue in a car is how much flexibility you have in adjustment...cars **** acoustically, so designing a fixed crossover and expecting the best results out of it for every car isn't going to happen.

also if someone is going to give some BS sound quality argument go check out a nice set of HT towers and see if it's active.

Not exactly sure what you mean by that, as I can think of plenty of designs at home that are actively bi-amped. Most large horn setups are bi-amped, as the L-pads for the 110dB/W horns would have to be huge to compensate for typical midbasses.