In Reply to: RE: Many reasons why active fails ... posted by josh358 on April 14, 2015 at 10:51:52:
Puesdo audiophile systems Josh ... :)Yes and mainly because most are content with 80-90db for playback levels and at peaks at that. As to active , my experience with active setups date back to early seventies and my first SOTA attempts. Back then 2 and 3 way active was doable and i had used xovers from Sansui,Sony , Crown and custom built discrete units, this worked really well over what i had before , but later , after i had acquired a Pr of MC3500's in 78 i went back to a full passive design and with the better amplification the system was much better. Over the decades i have tried many different itinerations of active setups, but always found the best results, Passive for mid-twt and active bass/mid-bass to be the best compromise over a full active setup.
Active in the bass makes not only good technical, but practical sense and does work in real world application. Connecting the amp directly to the woofer has many benefits, as oppose to running thru non-linear miles of aircore (due to big values) or linear, but compression killing laminate coils, not to mention the phase angles presented to the amplifiers as is usually necessary for a good low bandpass filter.
Still Full passive can be hard to beat when done right, the active setup will be extensive for SOTA performance and it will be orders of magnitude more expensive..Regards..
Edits: 04/14/15 04/14/15
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: Many reasons why active fails ... - A.Wayne 12:36:43 04/14/15 (2)
- RE: Many reasons why active fails ... - josh358 12:46:04 04/14/15 (1)
- RE: Many reasons why active fails ... - A.Wayne 14:23:14 04/14/15 (0)