Ah righty well usually active means that the amp is self contained and pssive means it is not. Also surely that makes no difference to the volume an active x-over just gives you more control.
Surely if you were to use the same system and have passive x-overs installed with the correct cutoff frequencies for that particular soundsystem then you would get the same if not similar volumes as having an active x-over. I don’t get where you think signal is being wasted. The signal is split between the different drive units or speakers, as below.
Anyway at the end of the day it still depends on what speakers you use. If you biamp a pair of peavey blackwidows you’ll still get pissed on by a porn horn with a passive x-over (should that person chosen to put one in).
Surely if you were to use the same system and have passive x-overs installed with the correct cutoff frequencies for that particular soundsystem then you would get the same if not similar volumes as having an active x-over. I don’t get where you think signal is being wasted. The signal is split between the different drive units or speakers, as below.
Anyway at the end of the day it still depends on what speakers you use. If you biamp a pair of peavey blackwidows you’ll still get pissed on by a porn horn with a passive x-over (should that person chosen to put one in).
Actually, the term passive has 2 meanings – the first is when applied to a full system, and is usually in reference to the crossover network used. The second is applied to a speaker, when it is used in reference to having an amp contained within the speaker (it’s all pretty confusing, and is mis-used regularly making it even more so).
The signal wastage with a passive crossover is from several places – the first of which is the fact that the signal is split, and then filtered after amplification. The most basic form of passive has a HPF installed before the tweeter in order to protect the tweeter from low frequencies (which would destroy it), and full range being sent to the woofer. The most common form of crossover has a LPF installed before the woofer (in order to filter out frequencies that the speaker is inefficient at reproducing)… With an active matrix, you do the filtering before amplifying (and can balance the signal before you send it).
The second place that the passive is less efficient is in the fact that the more complex (and more efficient) filter designs have serious problems with summing distortion when used as passive crossovers. The practical effect of this is that most passive crossover networks employ 1st or 2nd order Butterworth filters. An active matrix generally uses 4th order Linkwitz/Riley filters (resulting in a far steeper cutoff slope, and generally more efficiency – less of the wrong frequencies are fed to the wrong speakers).
The 3rd major place that actives produce more efficient usage of power is in the fact that they can be “tuned” to a particular space – this is a fairly complex subject, and I will be going in to it in the sound system thread I’m planning, but suffice to say the ability to tune to your environment is one of the most powerful aspects of active crossovers (and no, it is not the same as EQ’ing)….
If passives were able to reproduce the same efficiency as actives, then there would be no need for actives (they are after all a pain in the rear to set up). The reason we use them is because they are more efficient (and with amplifying sound, efficiency is the main aim).
