In Reply to: SET active versus passive biamplification posted by iodemus on July 5, 2011 at 01:46:58:
You will find many opinions on this question. My best advice is to seek the specific experience behind the opinion and ignore the conclusions drawn from that experience - draw your own conclusions if you must. In too many cases you can't get back to the experience by itself, which is unfortunate but completely human. Theory is close to useless, except to provide a comfortable reason to believe you own prejudices. I say that even though I am a theoretician myself ... :^)
My experience has been that high order line level crossovers sound better than passive speaker level crossovers, and that low-order speaker level crossovers sound better than high order ones. I have little direct experience with low order line level crossovers.
For what it's worth, active crossovers are usually feedback circuits, not simple gain stages following a passive network. Since one of the virtues of SETs is their lack of feedback, I am suspicious of active circuits - but as I said, that's theory and therefor nearly useless.
Incidentally, danlaudionut says "Caps are bad but inductors are lethal." There are others who say "Caps are bad, inductors are good." I'm not choosing, since I don't have a large enough base of direct personal experience - I'm just reporting the range of opinions I've seen.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: SET active versus passive biamplification - Paul Joppa 21:13:22 07/05/11 (5)
- RE: SET active versus passive biamplification - danlaudionut 04:35:15 07/06/11 (4)
- RE: SET active versus passive biamplification - Steyr 06:07:39 07/06/11 (3)
- RE: SET active versus passive biamplification - danlaudionut 09:55:14 07/06/11 (2)
- RE: SET active versus passive biamplification - Steyr 10:52:15 07/06/11 (1)
- Real Purty 8^D (nt) - danlaudionut 11:03:10 07/06/11 (0)