What does running active mean?

[finkster]

Not all electronic crossovers can do time alignment, as for passive's not being able to it's matter of placement, and +3db???

maybe not, but theres still other benefits that outweight passive crossovers. I have never seen anyone recommend going passive over active other than ease of wiring.

And i also dont know anything a passive crossover can do better than active.

[Boon]

+3db due to electrical inefficiency of a crossover. Also passive crossovers create phase differences that you don't have to worry about when active.

And as for placement? Please... unless you drive a McLaren F1 tell me how you plan to get the path lengths the same and still have a flat soundstage.

[Cr@sh]

By going out buying 360.2 so I'll look cool!

[Cr@sh]

maybe not, but theres still other benefits that outweight passive crossovers. I have never seen anyone recommend going passive over active other than ease of wiring.

And i also dont know anything a passive crossover can do better than active.

You obviously didn't read the link I posted then!

[tacomabanga1986]

i guess this is why my pioneer ftw, i can go headunit amp speakers = active, my deck has a built in xover to run active but im still wondering if i can rewire my coax's so i can run them active also, like desolder the tweeter leads and wire them in with tweets on my comp set n then wire the mids together also, like take a 4ch amp, run tweets on front, n mids on rear,

my decks rcas go from front n rear passave fullrange, to front tweet, rear mid active with seperate eq's and then sub, but how would i set it up to run my 8's as midbass?

and whats the percs in runnin active vs passave other than sq? can u push the mids n tweets more at a givin freq or basicly the same as passave but with better sq?

i wanna kno so when i build my new box i can redo some things, might put my coax's in doors n put my comps in kicks n 8's on each side of box

but i also wanna kno befor a spend a couple hundred on a good 4ch n it not sound no diff lol

i want mids n highs to sound smooth at a givn freq range but the subs to pickup right below em so its an even transition

edit: my deck can do digital time or some kinda alinement to make one speaker sound far off n another close up but i cant do this cause im runnin 2ch stereo off front channel for mids n highs, n rears are midbass, but when i go full active i want it to sound bitchin lol

it sounds killer now but i kno with a good ported box it will hit lows better n stronger than this downfire

Edited October 1, 2009 by tacomabanga1986

[Cr@sh]

You should probably start a new thread for some of what you posted tacoma. The main reason I argue for passive is cost, and by that I mean if someone takes the time to learn about crossover networks and how to build them themselves properly and for the desired effect then they will save alot of money. The easy way is active and yes I have run both and I have to say for me at least passive is way better, but I don't run rears and I don't run speakers all the way down my doors even where they will not be heard. The goal of any system should be that you have speakers from high to low covering all frequencies that music is reproduced in and that those speakers are filtered in the correct frequencies properly. Most passives cover this well enough, however for me I have and am now designing my new system to go from 30-12k hz using 8"s 4"s and 3"s and building my own passives with 400rms on each set. I guess everyone has there opinion and everyone's situation is going to be different and there are too many variables when telling someone that passive is better then active. I am defintely NOT saying that passive is better becuase neither is better then the other but more or less that it depends on what your money is like, how much time and skill you have. I think the OP had is answer a few post's ago so I'll shut up now!