On May 5, 12:02=A0am, "Peter Larsen" <digi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > As for your *****sment about why active systems are better then
> > passive speaker systems, DF is only one factor. Other factors that
> > improve with individual amps for each bandpass are greater power
> > handling ...
>
> Greater power handling is not about sound quality, which was what I
referr=
ed
> to, another reason is of course that crossover slopes are easier to keep
a=
s
> intended.
>
> > due to the use of steeper crossover slopes between the band
> > p***** resulting in greater driver headroom and output,
>
> This is not about active vs. passive.
>
> > less combing
> > from driver to driver through the crossover region since the overlap
> > is reduced from steeper crossover slopes,
>
> Nor is this.
>
> > no crossover components to
> > saturate and create distortion and waste some energy as heat, and the
> > ability to EQ and time align the individual bandp***** independently.
>
> There is no difference between designing an active and a passive
cross-ove=
r,
> but it is a lot easier to make an active cross-over do what you want it
to=
> do ... indeed!
Though I know passive crossovers can be 24dB per octave, I've never
seen them used in live sound reinforcement boxes. They tend to be 12dB/
oct designs. I suppose the reason is due to complexity and cost since
the components have to be able to handle the high power levels
required for such speakers. Then there's the issue of saturation and
component failure with that many components involved. I've seen some
pretty spectacular passive network failures. I would imagine a more
complex circuit would be a greater liability.
With the advent of digital speaker controllers, it definitely takes
the control to a whole new level with EQ and band pass delay. One
thing though, is it just me or does the analog stuff sound a bit
better thought it doesn't have all the correct gagets. I just assumed
it was related to the A/D D/A conversions. But that's just a
perception.
>
> Phil has addressed some other issues very well and included a very
> interesting link, skipping those, thanks!
>
Agreed.
Rupert
|
