Phil Leigh;169673 Wrote: > > My experience - based on listening rather than any scientific > measurements - is that active crossovers at line level seem to provide > a smoother, more controlled, lees "phasey" sound than passive x-overs > in the speakers. I actually agree that digital x-overs would be better > than the analogue ones I use - but then the ones I use are about £175 > per driver module and I use 12 of them in my 5.1 active system. I > really don't believe it is possible to build a passive crossover that > can deliver the same results as an active one. > > To a certain extent, all digital DRC solutions are going to react to > the speaker resonance you mention... > > As I alluded, there are other reasons why I prefer active solutions, > but this one is pretty important to me. I do believe that digital > x-overs would give you the best shot at what you want.
Could it be that the difference you hear with your active crossovers could be due more to lack of amplifier distortion rather than with phase coherence? Driving a passive crossover is much, much harder for an amplifier than driving a single speaker cone, because the impedance varies a lot over the large spectral range the amp has to cover. My understanding is that that is the primary reason why active crossovers are superior (it also means you can use much cheaper amps). On the other hand - and I may be wrong here - I don't see why the phase response would be any better with active rather than passive analogue crossovers. After all the only difference is whether the amplification is before or after the filters, right? But the phase delay doesn't care about amplitude. -- opaqueice ------------------------------------------------------------------------ opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=31590 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
