Active crossovers

Why the idea of an active crossover for a high end audio system never really hit the mainstream.

[Rowuk]

Active crossovers do not have to mean tons of dials. Fact is, phase is hard to do with speaker level crossovers. Powered speakers do not have to be difficult to setup. I do believe that better sound is possible.

[elginoctave]

I recall that with a triamplified system, with each speaker/driver being connected directly to an amplifier output, that the damping factor of each speaker would be ideal, due to the close to ideal zero ohm output of amplifiers. This theoretically would provide better impulse response in all of the

But the bigger issue is, who is the user of the system and what are his interests? Yes, there are people who as you said, just want their speaker to sound good out of the box and not mess with anything. However, if the author of the letter is a technically inclined experimenter, having an adjustable active crossover system, where one could not only adjust cut off frequencies and the order of roll-off, but to also adjust the filter response type could be most fascinating.

Of course experimenting by ear may do, but probably such a person would also want to measure their actual acoustic responses, adding more interest. And even being able to adjust the locations of each driver (well, the upper and midrange drivers relative to the bass driver) would all be of great interest. And goodness knows there are probably many other interesting variable to investigate.

So I think you may have given a simple answer that didn't address the apparent interests of your letter writer. Maybe you can provide an answer getting into the nuances of having an all active cross over system. It could be quite fascinating! Thank Chuck

[ThinkingBetter]

One really good reason is that active cross-over is superior from an audio perspective (precision of frequency response, phase, damping factor etc.). Come on Paul, there is hugely more audiophile value in active cross-over than in snake oil power cables, for example. None of us should doubt that the speakers are where most of the magic happens and the cross-over is indeed one hugely important attribute. It’s not about any desire of messing around with controls but about our pursuit as audiophile towards best possible audio!!! Then another super important benefit of active cross-over is that suddenly you also have excellent control of achieving optimal performance against your room acoustics, personal preference and the all too important equal loudness issue (Fletcher Munson effect) making your speakers perform at their best at your typical listening volume level. And of course this is only for those who are willing to spend time in tuning their system with some significant effort or expert support. Let’s be honest about this subject please.

[Fastvoice]

Don't forget that many professional studio speakers are already equipped with discrete amps for every chassis and a crossover right after the input of the cabinet (you may call it an "active crossover"). So you just plug in your (mono) audio cable from the mixing desk or audio interface and a power cable in every cabinet and you're already good to go.

[PSA]

I'm not sure why anyone would continue to mess with it, you go through the process of setting it up with measuring and listening and that's that.

One reason why DIY could easily knock a zero of a complete system today is because things like DSP is so cheap compared to passive components, another reason is that you don't have to spend your way through every single cable and component from the wall jacket to the drivers in the speakers.
And... I guess that's the actual issue for most audiophiles, they want to change stuff from time to time, and also don't mind paying for it.

[OG-gx]

In the system in question, I have utilized a complete digital crossover implemented using a computer and a professional audio interface. Measurements, crossover, and room correction were performed using Audiolense and implemented via HLC. This route is not for the faint-hearted and involves a lot of futzing (it's always nice to learn a new word). Previously, the crossover was implemented using miniDSP and REW. That method is less intensive and very stable, but the results are not as refined as with Audiolense because it uses IIR filters, whereas Audiolense uses FIR filters. When the system is calibrated and time-aligned at the listening position, it sounds incredible. The optimization flexibility is vast and much more predictable than switching cables, amps, etc. With an amp to each FR you don't need expensive amps, my most expensive amp is the Emotiva XPA 200, used.

[matteyles]

There was no going back after incorporating a DEQX crossover processor into my system, it is just phenomenal, but it's more than just a crossover it connects timing issues, and room room modes.

[gotham]

Now I’m really confused. Paul says audiophiles don’t want active crossovers because they don’t want to have to fiddle with level controls, crossover points and phase adjustments, but he also repeatedly says every system should include a powered subwoofer, which requires adjusting a crossover with level controls, crossover points and phase adjustments to fiddle with.

[mariancol]

What you say is correct, I'm an electronics technician and I have a tendency to get involved in technology. A few years ago I made a system with an active crossover, many amplifiers, cables and a lot of money, I was never satisfied, I was adjusting the crossover all day and I had no time to listen to music. I'm back to passive with premium components.

[Langeloudspeakers]

I believe that active systems can achieve better results compared to passive systems, if designed correctly. There are also systems that integrate everything needed for their management within themselves and do not require any intervention from the end user.

[atzeotze]

I think it will come. Not now, not tommorrow but it will.
Same as the analogue and the digital photography.

[DrNoahBoddy]

Outstanding!
As always Mr McGowan.
I’ll keep it even MORE brief, and succinct: My 1990s system is Completely THIRD-TIER from Flagship BI-Amplified, and the ONLY stratospheric High-End component I’ve ever wanted was a Statement Preamp. I’ve always ADORED drop-dead gorgeous, VERY HEAVY GUAGE Control Knobs. They telegraph to the guests a NORAD, adult seriousness in the proceedings! lol !!
So much so, that it would be THE ONLY item displayed in that listening room on an outrageously expensive rack with the rest of the entire system in a whole other room.

[tomday]

I'm with you Paul. The technology is already there in TV's to automatically hook to external sources using bluetooth and wi-fi. My TV sound system came with a wireless woofer as many do. But my "traditional" stereo system is my trusty Pioneer SX series receiver with a CD player and DAC. Most audiophiles will likely laugh at my 50 year old system of amplification (bought it new), but it sounds fine for my 10x12 office with cathedral ceiling through new speakers. I'm sure PS Audio will get the call after I win the lottery!

[thlevelweb]

Just like the best sounding preamp is no preamp, the best sounding passive crossover is none. HUGE different converting my NHT speakers to an active system ... that said, the active crossover needs to be high quality or it can add a veil to the music. I tried using a dbx professional active crossover with my Martin Logan ESLs to add subs and immediately heard a difference in transparency. I'm working on a DIY version of the active crossover based on a Nelson Pass design to have a more transparent version.

[ruthnumsolutions]

Ive studied sound engineering back in the 90s/2000s but never got inro it till 2016. The active xover has its place in large venues where you got the have multiple bass, mid and high drivers that can be placed out over large enough distances to various lisgening points that will require time and phase adjustments. Depending on what speaker enclosure you decide to use, crossover points can vary requiring a customizable xover frequency

[a.o.]

Audiophile consumers are conditioned by advertising to want huge power amplifiers that heat up the whole room and dim the lights of the whole house. The heavier the better. For pride of ownership, we want at least 200 watts per channel. We don't want 6 channels of 50 watts each, even though that might be ideal for an active system. Active systems need less power because fewer watts are converted to heat.

[aronake]

Aspen FR10 at 9.999 USD a pair is probably also not for "most people" ;)

[seedney]

If it was all monoblocks the reasons are obvious. Just money and space factor here… If I can I will go the route of everything separated. But I’m poor guy who likes music.

[RandySmith-izml]

You're right Paul, most people just want something that is dependable and it works, that's why Apple & Toyota products are so popular.

[jmggsantos]

Perfect Wave Preamp? It is a new product?