Active vs Passive

[FD3S]

I ordered a set of PPI 2 way components and i saw the xovers had the option to biamp. I have a pioneer deh9400 deck that is capable of 3 way active networking with time alignment etc.
Which option i should go withto achieve best reults? Active vs biamp vs normal passive. Mind you I am a newbie to the SQ thing.

Regarding amps I have an MTX 4 channel as well as 2 channel and a mono to play with

[Soundstream_626]

active offers you more control

with the passive your cross points are limited to what is offered on the unit and also the power to drivers is limited by the passive.

if you go hardcore be wary of the crossover slopes and phasing in between units as it may mess up your soundstage if not done right.

its all install dependent though but either biamp or passive should be fine but my pick is all active.

[evolution7tt]

If you got the processing power and amplifier channels, go active and don't look back.

Sure, it'll be a lil harder to tune, but the control you have over your system is worth it.

[pimptacular]

nothing is wrong with passive..i have used passive and competed
and did pretty well but to each to his own..passives are quick and easy to install and with proper tuning it can sound probably just as good as an active set up

[FD3S]

I think i'll try active. It may be a good learning experience and I figure time alignment will be more effective as i would have individual control over the mids and tweeters.
It would be hard not using these sexy passives though

[silent_riot]

Also remember some passives will have stuff like zobel filters and matching jumpers which are designed to give you a decent frequency response from those speekas. Those corrections make the set sound better as a whole...
If you go active with those same speekas, you'll need the processing to perform those as well.

[FD3S]

Yea i read something like that on another forum.

"Besides the valuable 2 stage tweeter protection engineered into the passive crossover there is also a Zobel network that mitigates the inductive rise of the midrange driver thereby improving it's upper range response. Additionally, I've read many times that the design of a passive crossover also takes into account polar lobing and the off axis response of the drivers."

Tough decision

[BLUE_CP9A]

identical to the a/d/s 346cs passive crossovers

[FD3S]

Yea, this set is suppose to a rebranded a/d/s

[De Hero]

it could be argued that without the frequency response curves of these two drivers that if you go active you may be a bit in the dark and end up relying on a seat of the pants approach.

For example high passing the tweets - you may want to start experimenting at a cross over two times Fs as a starter.

if Fs was 1500Hz then cross at 3000Hz. But you are probably in the dark right now about the specs on the drivers you are using.

Power handling - your passives will protect your tweets at high volumes.

I too am also looking to go active for my first time - so am excited about the possibility. Why dont you try both?

Question is which one first?

[jeff]

there are pros and cons for both
mostly dependant on install and speaker placement

there was a competitor recently competed with 6 passives on a front stage

but to tell you the truth this has been re-posted numerous times....

http://forums.trinituner.com/forums/vie ... vs+passive
http://forums.trinituner.com/forums/vie ... vs+passive
http://forums.trinituner.com/forums/vie ... vs+passive

[FD3S]

Good read on those links man. I want to try the biamp approach. Question though, i have an MTX thunder 564 amp rated at 45w x 4 rms 4ohm @12.5 volts. The comps are rated at 60rms/120peak.Is this amp powerful enough?
I also have an MTX thunder 942 rated at 175 x 2 rms @ 4 ohm @ 12.5 volts. Was planing on using this on my sub but would it be better to use it on the midwoofers and use half of the 4ch for the tweeters?
Also have a MTX mono for laying around i could put on the sub but would it be worth it putting that extra load on the electricals with 3 amps?

[Sully]

I'm running a set of a/d/s 346cs active. I had them in a passive setup previously and got better results with the active setup (not using the passive xover). Getting the time alignment right was more painful than with the use of the passive xover.)

If you're using the bi amp feature of the passives then the only benefit I see you getting is that of the time alignment. If you have external processing, then I'd go full active, as it gives you the option to set your xover point.

[southside connections]

active is alot more complicated than passive, and should not be taken lightly

however, active allows for much more control on individual drivers, which is it's main advantage

but when doing active, there are some catches, eg-

each speaker has to be individually run, so that means a total of 4 sets of wires to a 2 way front stage
it also means that you will need 2 different amps,one on midbass and one on hf units,and yes this also means that bandpassing is 100% necessary to keep you units under control at all times
usually this means a high end heaunit or, a high end external xover with time alighment and individual phase control



it is alot of work yes, but it's well worth it imo

oh i fogot to mention, ever wondered why the high end component lines like the HAT recommend strictly active? or why most of the upper level competition cars that are standing on the international level are active?


well there's your answer, go active and enjoy

[jeff]

oh i fogot to mention, ever wondered why the high end component lines like the HAT recommend strictly active? or why most of the upper level competition cars that are standing on the international level are active?

i'm sure everyone can call some cars and "high end" brands that use passives

[Aimar]

Why not try both! Run them in passive first then later on you can try the active route, or vice vers. Then you decide which one sounds better!
A good rule of thumb is to keep your tweet's relatively close to your woofers. And don't put the passives in the doors(if u decide to use them)

Good luck

[Sully]

Why not try both! Run them in passive first then later on you can try the active route, or vice vers. Then you decide which one sounds better!
A good rule of thumb is to keep your tweet's relatively close to your woofers. And don't put the passives in the doors(if u decide to use them)

Good luck

I fully agree with this.
However if you run full active, and you're using time correction the need to keep the tweets close to the woofer is negated, provided you can control the delay to each speaker individually.

[jeff]

However if you run full active, and you're using time correction the need to keep the tweets close to the woofer is negated, provided you can control the delay to each speaker individually.

actually the reason for the tweet being close to the woofer is not related in the time domain

eg

if your vocals are split from kick panel/door to a pillar, where female vocals come from above tweet and low male vocals come from woofer below, time correction wont help here

[Sully]

If the design of the PPI speakers is similar to that of the a/d/s then you can cross the tweets a bit lower and get some more of the vocals coming up higher. It made a difference shifting the xover point from 2.5k to 2k.

[FD3S]

I wouldn't feel comfortable crossing at 2k. Not doubting it sounds better but i don't trust myself with those tweeters at that cut LOL.
Some guys on DIY mobile audio forum seem to like between 3 and 4k. For now i decided to keep it simple and go the biamp route.
Anyone want to give some input on my question regarding the amplifiers a few posts up?