In Reply to: Since passive xovers are so problematic posted by LtMandella on February 23, 2020 at 17:44:17:
If you are thinking of basic electronic xovers even with variable slopes and crossover points it won't work as well as a good passive one because good crossovers compensate for driver problems(ALL drivers have them). A good crossover is speaker specific. So for an analog electronic crossover you'd have to design it speaker specific too. That means component specific like a passive xover.
A digital electronic crossover would be easier since you could do the individualization with software and use a good generic digital box. But many audiophiles are not ready for a digital crossover.
Then there's the problem of multiple power amps and they still need to be good. Usually this has been done by the speaker designer including his own amps. You do gain something here though. Each amp has a much easier job. It only covers part of the bandwidth and even more importantly it has an easier load, just a voice coil, not a complex passive crossover that can often strangle all but the best amps.
Ultimately an active crossover well done is superior to a passive one primarily for the reasons above. But you pay a price in cost and complexity. And if amps are part of the package as usual you piss off electronic manufacturers. It would be cool to see a speaker designer do an active system where the active crossover is include and specifically designed for each speaker. It can be done. I just can't think of one off the top of my head although it wouldn't totally surprise if it's been done.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: Since passive xovers are so problematic - hahax@verizon.net 02/23/2020:47:24 02/23/20 (3)
- RE: Since passive xovers are so problematic - KanedaK 01:56:14 02/24/20 (2)
- RE: Since passive xovers are so problematic - hahax@verizon.net 21:29:23 02/24/20 (0)
- RE: Since passive xovers are so problematic - Scholl 04:23:09 02/24/20 (0)