Why aren't there more active crossovers?

Loudspeakers divide their frequencies up with passive crossovers but more can be done if they are made active. Why aren't there more active crossovers in high-end audio?
I am getting close to publishing my memoir! It's called 99% True and it is chock full of adventures, debauchery, struggles, heartwarming stories, triumphs and failures, great belly laughs, and a peek inside the high-end audio industry you've never known before.
I plan a few surprises for early adopters, so go to www.paulmcgowan.com and add your name to the list of interested readers. There's an entire gallery of never before seen photos too.

[@goofyfoot2001]

I just built my active crossover setup for under $500. It sounds phenomenal. I used an EMB PRO 3 WAY CROSSOVER, three Micca OriGain Compact Stereo Integrated Amplifier 50W x 2, some speakers I've had since the 70's. This thing is the best sounding stereo I've ever had. Lots and lots of cable and that may be the biggest drawback but that could be cleaned up.

[@mattalones93]

This is an area where car audio excels beyond home stereo. I’m obsessed with both, but the level of granular control in DSP pre-amps from companies like Mosconi and AudioControl are so good that driver quality matters less than it once did, though it’s still important. When each driver is active, you can get close to perfect sounds curves using RTA tuning equipment. Crossover, rolloff, hi pass, low pass, bandpass, and robust EQ make this doable, even if difficult. My car stereo provides an experience so good for just a few thousand dollars that my friend with a $100,000+ home stereo is seriously baffled about how he got caught up into spending so much money. Today, just about any reasonably capable set of amps and drivers can sound just as good as a system that costs orders of magnitude more. Of course, you can always add a DSP to the very best equipment, but that is the “cost is no issue” solution that almost no one can afford.

[@FOHFILMS]

Car audio has not excelled past home stereo. It only seems that way because car audio is so physically/acoustically handicapped to begin with, meaning DSP can achieve a greater leap in improvement.

[@dreamdiction]

Three-way active crossovers with three amplifiers are much better in every way, they are rare because they are expensive. Hi-Fi is a high-volume/low-cost market.

[@SpeakerBuilder]

Exactly, and also I think most folks are unaware of the enormous benefits of a properly designed active system. Many factory designed active systems are cheaply built to compete with the passive market, and insisting on stuffing all the electronics inside the box, while convenient, cripples the designer from building a truly high quality system. For example, Paul has been very clear elsewhere of the importance of a beefy, high quality power supply for an amplifier. No way can you stuff two or three of those inside a speaker box, and then allow proper ventilation. Every component must be external, then true high quality sound emerges. See my youtube channel, "Speaker Builder" to learn about the many ways to design active systems.

[@TheMB2333]

It can be done with price points to fit any budget. The KEF LS50W does it at a price point around $2K. KEF powers both drivers separately and up to 230 Watts. The Devialet Gold Phantoms do it at power outputs well above that for $3K. These sytems are definitely audiophile territory and compete with passive separates priced thousands higher. The LS50W is a perfect example of actives being superior because they can so easily be compared to their passive original. I've read professional reviews who have tested the actives to the passives with gear in the neighborhood of $20K and they preferred the sound of the actives. Just imagine if KEF went head first into the reference line and paired amplification and crossover in those.

[@SpeakerBuilder]

This is exactly the kind of garbage I referred to in my other comments. No way a proper power supply can be housed inside this speaker boxes. No one who is serious about home hi fi would spend serious money on speakers and then purchase tiny power amps with a tiny power supply to drive them such as what must be stuffed inside these speakers. All serious amplifiers use huge and heavy toroidal power transformers and a pair of large coupling capacitors for a very good reason: such provides the ability to manage reproduction of dynamics inherent in well recorded modern music. These "powered" speaker are designed for the ignorant consumer, and while they no doubt sound better than their passive cousins, they are not the stuff of serious hi fi enthusiasts. I have just finished building a smaller version of my top of the mountain system, and total cost from scratch would be about $2500-$3000. The ability of that system would no doubt blow these away simply because it uses all the right stuff. All the electronics is external and can be carefully selected for quality, and can be swapped out for performance comparisons. If you're going to go active, you don't want to make foolish compromises you would never accept in a passive system. See my videos on "Speaker Builder" for more info. I don't promote my channel to make money, as it is not monetized, and I just don't care about the money side of it, I promote true active systems to educate so that others can enjoy this amazing format.

[@TheMB2333]

Then you apparently believe Paul's Stellar series Solid State Amp is garbage. Have you seen the internals of that? EASILY would fit inside a speaker. You are a complete snob. Easily offended by mainstream opinion of what you decide for everyone is acceptable quality fidelity.

[@dreamdiction]

@Michael B My experience is that passive crossovers work well in two-way speakers. There is only a small advantage in making active two-way systems. Passive crossovers in 3-way systems significantly degrade the mid-range because there are two or sometimes three filters elements in the signal path to the mid-range. There must be one filter element to keep the bass away from the mid-range, and there must but another crossover element to keep the treble away from the mid-range, sometimes there is also a notch filter to smooth out a hump in the middle of the frequency spectrum covered by the mid-range. The ear is especially sensitive to mid-range so three-way passive crossovers can make an audible degradation in sound quality. Another very important advantage with active crossovers is that you can ignore sensitivity when choosing a midrange speaker because the output is controlled by the midrange amplifier volume, this greatly opens up a wide range of speaker choices for the midrange. Active systems offer limited advantage in two-way speakers, the real advantage of active systems starts with 3-way speakers, so if you want to compare the relative merits of active crossovers, you should only compare passive three-ways with active three-ways.

[@AALavdas]

Agree absolutely. Practical issues aside, going active is just plain better. And of course you don't need to have active speakers, you just need multiple amplifiers.

[@thunderbladestorm]

Started using a Behringer DCX2496 with separate power amps in a 2-way DIY and have to say ... what took months with thinking could i have done it better - now takes seconds. Create a few "save-points", create a few more ... and just find what you like the most - long story short, am never EVER! going passive again !!!

[@ericnortan9012]

Even a pro Barringer makes that much difference? I am building 3 ways and am considering active crossovers. I don't want junk, but as I have little experience with active I don't want to spend too much on my initial attempt. Besides, if it does the job why waste more money? I like the idea of a pro unit because of all the functionality at a much lower cost than gear for HiFi.

[@AllboroLCD]

I have a set of active speakers from the 80's, they actually employ a "semi" active x-over. The x-over itself is passive, BUT it has an op-amp behind each freq range.

[@superheaton]

hey! that is good idea to add a buffer (ie; as you wrote "adding an op amp behind each freq range"), to prevent the looping noise from happening

[@danielhillwick8430]

Thanks for answering that question Paul. I've always wondered why active crossover networks weren't popular in home audio like they are in car audio. I run all active in my car for its efficiency and flexibility to overcome such a harsh environment. There's been many times I have thought of putting together a home system using active crossover Network or DSP. There are some great pieces of equipment out there for car audio that I think would work beautifully in a home setting.

[@nicholascremato]

I have both active and passive crossovers in my system. As someone who has been building loudspeakers for years, if you find that much of a difference in quality when you bypass the passive crossover in your speaker, it means that either the passive crossover is not up to the task or you are using the active crossover to make up for deficiencies in the room.

[@ememe1412]

You make it sound so daunting. Things like minidsp and raspberries can do the job of active crossovers with incredible amount of control and ease. A person can open up a speaker and unhook push tabs or unsolder connections to the drivers and alligator clip them to the terminals to try active (caveat on burning an unprotected tweeter of course). No need to neccessarily 'clip' anything. Manufacturers can offer more of their speakers as active with active crossover (bypassable to passive with a switch if they want), passive and or 'naked' (with no filters whatsoever) with xover recommendation and schematics. Come on, upgrade paths on component choice and endless (and mindless) tweaking is audiophile de rigeur. Manufacturers can offer upgrades and 'sound shaping' components galore. Passives are dominant because the market has been set up that way. AV receivers have had dsp xovers for subs for years. You can choose frequency and slope even on some modules to accomodate sealed, vented and lying spec sheets for the fronts for best integration. Anyone can look at a passive xover circuit and use online calculators to determine the frequency and slope its dividing. Use this as a starting point. You can even mic the room response and let the software adjust to flat after the crossover plot has been set....

[@kavajamusic5411]

Avtive crossovers are the best choise

[@jeffreylonigro1382]

I have an active crossover powered by three Adcom amps: a GFA -555, 545, and 535 powering stereo Audio Concepts Saturn subs and Heavily reworked Genesis speakers. I’ve had a few audiophile friends blown away by the sound of this system.

[@callmebigpapa]

When I built my own custom speakers I set them up for either single or tri-amping. For the crossover I use a DriveRack PA-2 that I got on clearance for 150 bucks. Cables from mono price. I had lots off good quality amps laying around so no additional cost there. I think it was worth the effort but agree with his comments on modding existing speakers especially if they are expensive speakers but you could always build a custom enclosure and just use the drivers. Active crossover in total only added about $200 to my project so it was worth it for me.

[@m.9243]

If one decides to go the active crossover way, s/he must be willing to : a) Spend quite a bit of extra money on the cross overs b) Forfeit the warranty of the speakers c) Spend a heck of a lot of time, doing accurate measurements in the room in order to achieve a reasonably flat frequency response. Having heard a friend's system (having done all the above), I must admit, the results were stunning!

[@engjds]

Not sure about b), you can get a 4 ch DSP module (Programmable) for around £100, upgrading a passive crossover you can spend significantly more than that. If you have the test equipment that is and a spare amp.

[@ericnortan9012]

I built a passive 3 way for a set of large floorstanders. Quality parts, 14 awg air inductors (14 awg laminated on the bass) caps are clarity csa on the mid, jantzen supreme on the tweeter and audyn on the bass. The bass was 68uf so I used the audyns for the price. Ended costing roughly $300. Those are all high quality parts, but IDK if they reach high end status. I know it can get to the thousands if you go with true high end components.

[@kevinpetit9886]

We use active crossovers in live sound every day. I like active crossovers because you can have multiple amps for subs lows mids highs. Also you can help smooth out system problems and send certain frequency’s to certain drivers thus preventing damage.

[@Enemji]

Well, Bose does that. The equalizer and amp are all integrated within its subwoofer box. Customers who want plug, play and enjoy, are loving it.

[@NackDSP]

Audiophile dealers love passive speakers because they can sell you all sorts of exotic speaker cables that might have high or low resistance or capacitance that will change the tone a little bit. Those cables will cost more than the second amplifier you would need to create an active crossover system. They also like to sell you different amplifiers so you can get slightly different sound due to those low impedance passive crossovers producing slightly different sound with different amplifier output impedances. So yeah, that would greatly cut into their sales. You probably already own four channels or more of amplification so most people I know only need to buy a digital crossover and patch it in.

[@Justwantahover]

If you simply bought 3 amps and 3 grapics, and used each amp and graphic for each driver (if on a 3-way) it could be an easy way to make an active crossover cos you can change it easily. Should sound great and you could tailor it to different rooms nearly instantly.

[@goofyfoot2001]

I bought a cheap active crossover and converted my old three way speakers and bought three cheap amazon 50w stereo amps and it sound fkin amazing.

[@Coneman3]

I use 2 speakers: one is a TL with no passive crossover to the woofer (I use this for bass/mid). The other I just use the tweeter which simply has a capacitor to prevent low f going to it. Thus, it is not far off being active. Each speaker has a power amp. But each amp gets full range signal. Superb sound. I’m going to make my own speaker enclosures and go properly 4 way active with separate active crossovers. Should be amazing.

[@BlankBrain]

This explanation seemed to make using active crossovers seem more difficult than it really is. Non-servo speakers have two wires each. The wires attach to the passive crossover. Bypassing the passive crossover is easy. 1. Label the crossover points and speaker wires so they can be easily reconnected in the future. 2. Disconnect the speaker wire from the passive crossover and add sufficient wire to reach the desired enclosure exit point. If the drivers have push connectors built in, just disconnect the existing wires at the driver and add new wire. If not, use wire nuts, crimp connectors or solder and heat shrink to connect to the driver wire. Some drivers have soldered-on wires in proximity of the voice coil wire. You may wish to avoid soldering near voice coil connection wires. 3. Install female banana plugs (sockets) or other suitable terminals at the desired exit point of the enclosure. 4. Connect (solder or crimp) the speaker wires to the backs of the banana terminals, maintaining polarity for phase alignment. 5. Make sure all pass-through points are airtight. Have a professional do the conversion if you feel uncomfortable doing it yourself. When I built my speakers, I just drilled holes through the enclosure and used large brass machine screws to get the signal in. The screws go through the holes in crimp terminal on the inside. I used brass washers and two brass nuts on the each of the outside connections. The second nut locks the first. I originally used wing nuts to secure the speaker wires to the terminals on the outside of the enclosure, but later found some brass knurled nuts. Most enclosure materials are non-conductive. My speakers are heavy enough that I had to install neoprene casters and a skirt, so I put my speaker terminals on the bottom. Paul is right about passive crossovers being complex to design. I designed my speakers to be tri-amped, thus saving myself the (extreme) hardship of building passive crossovers. I wouldn't have had a chance in hell of getting good sound. There's something to be said for having nothing but heavy copper between the silicon of the output transistors and the voice coils. After many years of leaving my system alone and just listening, I'm working on a project to eliminate my analog crossovers and play files from my NAS. I have a large FPGA, which will have some custom DSP, long FIR filters, crossovers and six DACs. I'm planning on using multiple regulated linear power supplies. If anyone has experience with Balanced Zen Line Stage implementations, I'd like to hear from you. If I get it all working, I'll make it open source.

[@Geerladenlad]

In order to get the most out of bi- amplification using a tube amp to drive the tweeters and a solid-state amp to drive the mids do you need to separate the speakers from the passive network and use active crossover between the amp and the speaker?

[@cp070476]

High end studio monitors are all 'Active'.. ATC.. PMC.. ADAM.. It's meant to be a superior to passive because every driver has it's own perfect matching amp. Yes these speakers are very expensive..

[@Justwantahover]

If you simply bought 3 amps and 3 grapics, and used each amp and graphic for each driver (if on a 3-way) it could be an easy way to make an active crossover cos you can change it easily. Should sound great and you could tailor it to different rooms nearly instantly.

[@cp070476]

Justwantahover sounds complicated! You can try anything if it sounds good and you save money then job well done!. ATC PMC ADAM do it for you built in but as i said you pay for it. Unfortunately quality costs..

[@Justwantahover]

It's just an idea I had in mind. Not really that complex just 3 amps with graphics. Not necessarily high end, just 3 standard amps and graphics. Cost a bit but nothing like high end price. It would be a lot better than just a single graphic and you can fiddle with the output of each driver easily too with the volumes of the 3 amps.

[@MrRoberacer]

Eq's don't actually do what you need. Remember you are feeding full range to every eq and then trying to take out what you don't want that driver to see from there. In the case of a tweeter which typically has an operating range of over 2khz and up subsonic information would rip it apart. The difference between a crossover and an eq is that a crossover starting at the xover point goes from nominal gain to zero gain either going up or down depending on what you are doing with it. An eq's maximum attenuation is usually minus 12db. It needs to be minus infinity or in the case of a tweeter don't expect it to live very long. Also, you will find that you won't be achieving the results you are looking for.

[@cp070476]

Rob Chapman so you think every song ever recorded on any format will sound good on a reference system set to 'Direct' or flat.. I do not agree. Every song was mastered differently on different monitors.. Even tbe IRS IV's won't sound right without EQ.. I have been trying to achieve perfect sound for 25 years and i now believe you need to EQ every track for your system..

[@johnlebeau5471]

Hmmm. I didn't realize, when I built my active crossover tri-amp system, that it was hard. It did use up most of my wires.

[@bobhoskins9595]

Used up most of your wires.....huh? Is that even a relevant comment in audio? Why are so many idiots here? Its like you've never heard quality audio in your life.

[@johnlebeau5471]

@@bobhoskins9595 Aint it grand that KZbin lets us know when someone replies to our comments. I wouldn't reply except you have graced me with enough of your time to insult someone you know nothing about. Should I have said it requires four sets of interconnects and three pairs of speaker wires? Is that erudite enough for you? I built the speakers, and I built one of the amps I use on them from a schematic. By the way, your last sentence is a non sequitur.

[@juliangst]

Everyone can build a crossover using a minidsp or similar dsp devices.

[@TheRockerxx69]

I have one electronic x over---two mono amps for bass, one amp for mids, one amp for highs, we are in another planet, cloud 9...eheheheheh

[@bobhoskins9595]

You, sir, are deaf. Why would anyone use a different amp on the tweeters? Now your mids and high frequencies are going to sound dissimilar. High frequencies are very efficient, take no problem. This makes no sense. And electronic crossovers are very audible in the midrange. You're probably using garbage equipment like most "rockers". Cheap or no DAC, no turntable, cheap solid state preamp and power amp or integrated amp, and bikg honking booming speakers whose size impresses your deaf friends.

[@TheRockerxx69]

@@bobhoskins9595 phuk off ya illiterate millenial!

[@MrRoberacer]

Paul, it is interesting that the home/hi-fi audio scene has shied away from active crossovers. As mentioned in recording passive crossovers are almost considered a dinosaur not to mention most speakers are only available in self-powered units now. I feel like some of the cheaper models which no-one really concerns themselves with come self-powered but with passive crossover networks in them. Clearly, that is purely to save money. I think for efficiency reasons hi SPL (sound pressure level) systems have been using active since the 70's or something. Not only has pro audio on mass moved more toward active systems in general but all of the processing (crossovers, etc) is done in the digital realm and then converted to analogue just to send to the amps. In fact, many amps now come with the processing in them as you mentioned. I am told this is mostly done this way as speaker manufacturers who were making great sounding speakers were having problems with people using amps that didn't work with their speakers thereby making high-end sounding systems sound horrible. I personally think it was more than that and that was the small reason in actuality. The thing with processing in the digital realm is that it is easier to adjust time offset between drivers and that digital processing also creates less phase shift and far less distortion not to mention the ability to manipulate a much greater number of parameters cheaply than in the passive or analogue realms. Shifting time is possible I am told with a passive crossover but it all comes back to cost. In passive networks, we are not dealing with millivolts anymore. All of the components have to be planned with high power throughput in mind. With that, a simple resistor is no longer one cent.

[@SpeakerBuilder]

No, no, no, Paul, a properly designed active speaker system for home hi fi is built around an active, electronic crossover, and then two or three (for a two way vs three way system) external amplifiers are added to the system, and each amp is hooked up to an individual driver. So as opposed the inferior active speaker designs produced by manufacturers that try to stuff all the electronics inside the speaker box (and are built for specific applications, such as recording studio monitors), a proper design keeps all the electronics outside and accessible, allowing for infinite flexibility in selection of amps and speaker wire. I agree that trying to convert a passive system into an active one is not an appropriate way to proceed, as those drivers were carefully selected to work together in a passive mode. My efforts to convert passive speakers to active have not worked out well, and I ended up putting them back to passive. The correct way to design an active system is to start from scratch and carefully select each driver for its design features and flat response, and place them in pre-built or home built boxes. I have built many such systems, and have documented that work on my youtube channel, "Speaker Builder". I have not done any of this work to make money or become famous, rather, just to share my experiences with the goal of encouraging others to pursue the same.

[@chrisvinicombe9947]

Speaker Builder sounds interesting I'll have to check out your channel.

[@SJMessinwithBoats]

Speaker Builder, "exactly"

[@Enemji]

Bose 901 comes to mind. The EQ box is in essence a crossover that makes sure the end result from the driver is pleasant.

[@Enemji]

Build a flat response driver, or build an EQ that makes the driver response flat. Potato. Patato. Dr Amar Bose was definitely thinking way ahead of the tech available even back then.

[@SpeakerBuilder]

Paul has commented elsewhere of his not being in favor of eq'ing a system, and instead focusing on getting flat response from the speaker system in the first place (along with treating the room, speaker placement, etc.), and I would agree, an eq in the signal path introduces another source of distortion, or said better, loss of clarity, not in itself all that significant, but I have learned that every link in the signal chain matters, so a very careful and methodical review of every link is necessary to achieve the highest clarity.

[@Somesh-Ji]

Hi, would please spare sometime to answer my question. I watched your review and of Topping E30 DAC and brought it to use in my. I also have Helix DSPMini installed in my. Will E30 DAC will improve the quality as DSP has inbuilt DAC to which not good as AK4493. Is it worth use highend DAC and then feed in low quality DAC ?? My E30 is still in dispatch. Pls reply.

[@Andrewatnanz]

Im going 4 way active. using a calibrated mic and software to analyze the sound is vital for adjustments. Its better because its adjusted for the room.

[@djdacdb]

If you only use digital sources an digital crossover with eq/filters/delay(and more) that will give the freedom to adjust the sound just like you whant it and also to do correction on the frequency respons to prefection and it will sound very good compared to most passive filter out there. Also you will have the freedom to switch out speaker components rather easily(sub/mid/tweeter). But like you said it´s not super easy but with an mesurement microphone and REW it´s very easy to make it work good.

[@goofyfoot2001]

What I really want is an adjustable PASSIVE, stackable crossover. By that I mean, I want to be able to dial in speakers of my choice and as many as I want per channel by stacking filters. So there are free programs to do 2 and 3 ways and tell you the right components. I just want to snap together filters that represent different frequency ranges.

[@cyberdyers]

We just need audio companies to make portable stereo systems with built in active crossovers, even at low wattage portable small home audio system, damn they sound way better, as class d amplifiers are getting cheaper and cheaper. We just need to integrate them to old design. I just made a cassette radio integrated with a small 2 way crossover, all my friends told me it is about 200 watts of peak music, when it actually is around 16 watts rms running on a 1 khz active crossover. 6 watts on woofers and 2 watts on tweeters.

[@ericnortan9012]

I am building a set of three ways and am leaning toward active crossovers instead of building a passive. I have very little experience with active other than subs and AVR adjustments. So I figure this will be a good way to get familiar, definitely save alot of time. These are going to be more party speakers than real HiFi, but I want them to sound good. With an active, should you still add a cap to the tweeter for protection? (Ribbon tweeter) I am going to do all the research an calcs but if anyone has any sugestions, critcism, warnings or knowledge on the subject, some input would be appreciated.

[@bobhoskins9595]

The elephant in the room is the distortion of active crossovers in the midrange and high frequencies. That's why serious designers only use them for low pass below about 100 hz and below. Introducing other amps can introduce different sounds as amps can sound different. You do not want a different sounding amp for your tweeters and midranges.

[@_klent]

Good crossover must sound just like 1 driver.

[@bobhoskins9595]

@@_klent Ya think? Yeah, no kidding. Sort of like saying the sky is blue.

[@lewys1087]

I don't think the issue is that it's difficult to design a speaker crossover, at least not an active crossover. The issue is more that simple crossover designs (such as those based around Sallen-Key filters) with fixed crossover frequencies are only suitable for the drivers they are designed for. The difficulty comes in when you try to make the crossover frequencies adjustable so that they can be used with many different loudspeakers (at least without resorting to DSP). It is, however, true that since almost all commercial loudspeakers have crossovers built in, there's no real advantage to using an active crossover unless you specifically want to remove frequencies within the passband of the built-in passive crossovers.

[@gamesessions]

What happened to that lovely term “squawker” for mid-range drivers?

[@ped-away-g1396]

it's all about demand. audio is one of the most mythical fields out there with lots and lots of 'believes' pretty much like religions. and passive crossover is believed to have the most "natural" sound for a long time and that belief never goes away so active crossover never really had a chance. because of that, manufacturers don't manufacture them. it's similar to how the market is flooded with bass reflex speakers. if you want a mythically good sound system, you buy it. if you want a technically good sound system, you build it.

[@Enemji]

If I want to use active crossovers, should I not be using it with speakers that do not have a passive crossover built into it?

[@_klent]

When you have active crossover, don't put another passive one.

[@AndyBHome]

While active speakers may not sell due to a lack of interest among audio hobbyists because they take control away from the operator, I would think that speakers without passive crossovers and individual driver connectors on the back of the cabinet, in addition to an external active crossover would be the antithesis of the active speaker model. I can imagine audiophiles loving the outboard active crossover and possibly even speakers built with individual cabinets for each driver like Goldmund and Wilson Audio. If I had a million bucks (probably more like 20 million) I think I might want to try creating speakers where you had nice but inexpensive 3-way "cabinet" with 3 "taps" on the back, one for each driver, specifically for use with active crossovers. I'd also try selling much larger, more expensive speakers with the same philosophy. As Paul says, most people would probably not get the great crossover tuning that a company like Harbeth achieves, but that's all pretty subjective anyway and it might become hugely popular among audiophiles who simply like to experiment with the possibilities. It certainly would not appeal to the Bose tabletop radio crowd, but if there is a market for it and someone could make a profitable business out of it, that would be really cool.

[@ericnortan9012]

I'm in the process of doing that right now. For myself, not the market. I've built decent speakers before, a couple were just reproductions of existing designs, and a couple of my own plans (more like a few if we go back to high school) I want to test the active waters so I have been looking into a couple of HiFi active crossovers that are reasonable priced (not trying to break the bank on an experiment). I am considering one of those Emotiva amps with the modules because they are relatively inexpensive but I believe one amp will do the job. If it works out I will step up the amps to something a little more high end and install the Emotiva on my home theater. If I don't like it I will build a passive crossover for them. Winter project.

[@ChannelyMcChannelChan]

Does an active crossover tipically include ADC and DAC components?

[@ChannelyMcChannelChan]

Thank you Paul! That's was I was thinking... that miniDSP sounded somehow wrong, having a cheap ADC+DAC in the middle of the signal to the main speakers. I mean in Hi-Fi, of course. There are many other uses where it could be useful. Using it for the sub sounds like a good idea.

[@russmaleartist]

BUT, if the design allowed the amplifiers to be on the outside with the separate wires built-in the speakers; then the amplifiers could be chosen. I've seen it done, and my intent on my system is already partly active by my design . . . and I will be working towards the rest as I can afford the amplifiers to do so.

[@60zeller]

Yes to active speakers. What speaker cables are you using? None

[@bilguana11]

Servo systems are after the fact "correction" and should be avoided as one is creating distortion no matter how it measures. They just muddy the sound. It's physics folks.

[@SJMessinwithBoats]

sorry, I already won this game. But it took me 37 years of messing with them to get it right. Build your "killers" and I will build mine. See you there when your ready!

[@gizmothewytchdoktor1049]

active x-overs belong in a p.a. stack feeding amp inputs. subs/kicks....mids.....highs. been using them for years. handy. helps to bring in better clarity,increase dynamic headroom and reduce the need for eq duty chores. in a home or studio mix environment.....nope. oh yeah....to address that active driver assembly thing: never have i heard a natural sounding assembly. the roll off points always become apparent after a short time listening to them. it draws your attention to them. a very short 2cw on both sides of the subject. ;->

[@staLkerhu]

Hello there! Why wouldn't you recommend it for home audio or studio mix? What are the drawbacks which doesn't appear/matter in PA applications? 🤔

[@gizmothewytchdoktor1049]

@@staLkerhu i/m distortion/switching artifacts/colourations in the presentations that are not consistent. in a p.a. system an electronic x-over is a valuable addition because it allows you to optimize bandpass/driver/amplifier power parameters to allow for the best punch and presentation possible. in a studio or home listening environment accuracy and phase consistency/tonal balance give the best experience. this is best accomplished with passive crossovers. no matter the source though....the reproduction through the drivers is always analogue in nature. your ears will tell the difference when experienced back to back.

[@MrMarantzman]

1ST, good job as always Paul

[@dtv266]

Hahaha! Masses wouldn't know how to use active cross overs. Poor sales numbers.

[@mikka1986]

Active crossover with multiple channel amplifiers to drive a pair of speaker is definitely superior in sound quality, but the biggest downside will be very difficult tune, most of the time it will sound like crap, as all these crossover tuning is by the speaker designer who spent a lot of time in it. Another downside will be easier to blow tweeter if careless. Not suitable for inexperience people and the most importantly very expensive.

[@SpeakerBuilder]

I absolutely agree, having built many active systems now, I would say it is not something for the novice to tackle, and not for the budget minded. But I would argue that the results can be absolutely amazing clarity, and this in the $2500 to $5000 price range, which is really small money compared to what Paul and others are spending on their systems. Paul says his top of the mountain system at his facility costs 100 grand. That's just crazy, even for me. I could never justify that kind of expense for a toy that does not make any money. That much money should be put to work and yield 10-15 percent annual return on investment.

[@mikka1986]

Price tag does not define a system sound quality, lots of the big budget system I've audit sound very disappointing and the owner just want to boast about their financial capability. I like listening to system setup that the owner spend a lot of time and passion into it, trying out different methods to improve the sound, most of these system will have a unique listening pleasure, doesn't matter if it's cheap or expensive as price tag is just a number.

[@SpeakerBuilder]

True enough, that being said, I would say that having for many years now engaged in the very method you refer to, I find that chasing high quality sound tends to be expensive. The budget systems sound like budget systems, the medium priced systems sound much better, and the very expensive systems sound amazing. This is true up to a certain point, beyond which you reach the place of diminishing returns. And you would be correct to say this does not apply to every component in a system. I found really amazing sounding interconnect cables that surpassed those at twice the price. And really great sounding speaker wire can be had for a very reasonable price, esp when selected for certain frequency bands (as with three way active systems). But my next project of chasing exceptional quality amplifiers will likely be a VERY expensive ordeal. And high quality drivers that sound amazing are quite expensive.

[@ericnortan9012]

It's seems to me you would want to install a protection cap on the tweeter just in case.

[@wric01]

Cost manufacturer alot more money that's why. You want it? it'll cost 10k+ as audiophile companies have to make 50 to 100 fold minimum.

[@ovidiubarbu2057]

Old news . I have Buchardt A700 Blows away everything. And yes you can tweak it as much as you like in digital domain And yes is class D , snubbed by so many audiophiles. And is WISA in digital domain. Of I forgot Vinyl with 50,000 turntable and 100,000 pre amp and with 100,000 tube amp pure class A and a ton of distortion is the best according to some audio magazines. I believe in measurements , and would be nice if any of these experts would be willing to participate in blind tests . Paul is very nice though. I am not referring to him. One day DSP will emulate every single tube on the market

[@derekviveiros]

Where do you think we are on that projectory of DSP emulating tube? I actually believe this is true. We need AI on this ;)

[@ovidiubarbu2057]

​@@derekviveiros

[@ovidiubarbu2057]

@@derekviveiros AI will someday emulate all kinds of speakers, tube sounds, amps, etc. It will also improve room response much better than current systems. An advanced AI amp will play different sound bites, ask the owner which sound better to him, and then design the optimal algorithm to make the music sound perfect to that particular owner.

[@derekviveiros]

@@ovidiubarbu2057 drool. The power of AI can be incredible

[@Mikexception]

All know thatTo develop any properly working crossover it takes proper formulas to calculate values and to know the structures of connections . Then speakers won't be damaged and in general work according to destation. But when it comes to proper outcome reaching listener's ears then proper has meaning miracle. Too many changable factors electrical and mechanical and acoustic cooperate together in time and even most of them are measurable the results are hard to interprete and it turns nonsens. For miracle required accuracy is unreachable in standard serial manufacturing. I developed (invented) new crossover which does most of this job by it's natural balancing so I not needed to scratch my head and it works much better than generaly known but level of required care would be not practical for average user. Tuning of this crossover has to be confirmed and eventualy improved with dedicated tool every month. Even I last time found that it is easier to live with old wideranges. Their advantage is that it do not emulate anything, use 7 bands and almost no RLC filters..But have this disadvantage that are not produced and alow power of max few watts. For me it's more than enough.

[@mpitogo]

Good question... Another great active set is the biamp KEF LS50W

[@dayweed4268]

Not a lot of innovation in home audio. Active is better and sounds better.

[@jareknowak8712]

One-way, full range solves the problem.

[@staLkerhu]

For the tone-deaf..........

[@jimovergaard1254]

Audiophile equipment died in the late 80s. Idiots don't know physics, electronics ... What happened to the VFET, JFET? Direct Drive in B&K analog measurement tape always showed DD to be superior due to 3 D Balancing of the platter, the superior position of the motor and the bearings and with the servo mechanisms always surpassed the belt drive by -10 to -30 in Rumble in both weighted and unweighted and .02-.03% wf vs double and quadruple of the belt drives , even Linn Sondek. The brainless also put small drivers in place of the larger drivers with far more distortion and no bass to the fast no low end garbage. Think of the Technics SP-10mkIII with and entire arm made of Boron and micrometer capable system of fine tuning cartridges that had styli that were vastly more advanced such as the Fritz Gyger stylus

[@draganantonijevic2441]

Active crossover =''monogamy''

[@astra004]

Dragan Antonijević Monogamy=Fidelity

[@draganantonijevic2441]

Yeee!