In Reply to: What active crossover are you using? posted by Triodeuser on June 21, 2014 at 09:24:16:
Not trying to hijack the thread just interjecting my experience. The idea of an active is attractive on many points, especially theoretically. Over time I have decided I like less in the preamp level signal path. Extra line stages from x-overs and most active preamp as well as other things like EQ's can really degrade sound. This has become most important to me in what signal is sent to my amp.
My biggest concern where a passive crossover is concerned is/was sending a full range audio signal to an amplifier where say in a two way speaker I wouldn't need that full range. In particular the HF amp where nothing below 2K is needed on the HF side. So even though the crossover is passive and at the speaker after the amplifier there is no negative effect from the full range(and low frequencies) sent to the HF amp. This is because the HF section does not allow LF to be reproduced.
My HF amp has clipping indicators and they have NEVER lit from low frequency information. This is because the load of the HF side of the speaker doesn't use those frequencies. The only time the clipping indicators (rarely) light is from dynamic midrange information like guitar or a snare drum. The point of my post is to encourage at least trying good passive crossovers and comparing them to active ones because another line stage can degrade. This is also why I now use a passive linestage with great and improved results.
ET
ET
"If at first you don't succeed, keep on sucking till you do suck seed" - Curly Howard 1936
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- I used to think - Awe-d-o-file 06:57:06 06/23/14 (3)
- RE: I used to think - Cleantimestream 20:04:39 06/24/14 (0)
- RE: I used to think - Alpha Al 13:56:41 06/23/14 (1)
- RE: I used to think - Awe-d-o-file 16:36:50 06/23/14 (0)