Hi this is a very strong statement
Do you mean that active speakers are superior for some reasons?
One that was particularly annoying was a Panasonic-branded box, at least 3 cubic foot, with a 15" woofer, a 5" midrange, and a horn tweeter. The cabinet was 1/2 inch particle board, stapled together, no bracing at all. The woofer had a tiny magnet and a tiny voice coil. The horn tweeter was a piezo unit which could be bought from a catalog for $4. There was a cap in series with the mid, and a cap and resistor in series with the tweeter, and no other crossover components at all. The speaker had no bass below 60 Hz, screechy treble, and sounded worse than the boom box it was replacing. But it looked super impressive. My friend bought the pair from K-Mart department store, and for a few more dollars he could have bought the Boston A-70s. It was this experience that got me into DIY. A few months later we bought a Kit from Madisound with an 8" Peerless woofer and a 1" Audax dome tweeter... The difference in sound quality between the kit and the Panasonic monster was so enormous.
Do you reall think the audio signal gets better when you squeze it through capacitors, coils and resistors?
Have you realized that you can build the whole active part from the money you do not spend for medium quality passive x-over parts?
Have you ever heard the same speaker, passive and active? You should do so and then answer your self. Don't ask "people and the internet", start listening with your ears! Good idea is to wash them first...
Hi yes i see your points
But if we make a survey here in the forum I am sure the vast majority of people use passives
And the monkey in me gets confused
And honestly passives are much more practical One amp is enough
I understand it's a tech challenge to design and build a good xover
But if we make a survey here in the forum I am sure the vast majority of people use passives
And the monkey in me gets confused
And honestly passives are much more practical One amp is enough
I understand it's a tech challenge to design and build a good xover
Last edited:
Choose your banana. It is also a personal and monney choice. Nothing wrong with both and your active setup have still capacitors much more colored.
I find passive more elegant as original signal current is flowing in less parts till the drivers. But I know it has less precision from a design point of view as the spl amplitude shape in the room most matters. While it is not always here that a sucessfull design standss as both have trade offs. At the end only the result matters. But for many reasons that are more economics than everythingelse, passive will surely colllapse step by step. Fault also towards passive parts sellers that sells that easy parts at the price of gold... idiot things !
Here imho at Diya, we will certainly sligth towards multichannels but with diyed DACS to rule the musicality untill there is an easy and affordable way to do it as long as the goal is to playback music in an elsewhere area than where it was formerly playbacked/catched.
I never came upon an activated speaker that performed worse than the passive version. You can argue "the passive was not done right". I can not proof your word to be wrong, but the activated speakers where not low end.
I will admitt, in my experience the amplifier plays a very important role as there are some speaker that sound much better with another amp, even as both are not really bad. What I count as "amp sound". Some say all amps sound the same... Ok.
Many mediocre amps do not like the caps and coils in the way off the amplified signal. Like many valve amps, that need an impedance correction to bloom.
For some reason the low voltage signal before the amp, with only very little current flowing, does not care much about passing capacitors. As any signal has passed an uncountable number of them, resistors and op-amps, during recording on it's way to the final amplifier. Not too many coils.
On the other hand, a lot of people rave about full range speakers and blame the superior sound on the absence of a passive x-over. Indeed, the way some full range speaker's perform, is impressive and remembers me of the improvement I heard in activated speakers. Anyway, even in a full range speaker the signal has to pass at least throug a resistor and a coil, but this seems less harmfull.
By the way, I know of developer that use DSP and single amps for every speaker to verify a speaker concept, then start to build the passive x-over to match the DSP curve, because it is wanted passive by the industry.
Look at the most expensive speaker, many have "Benic" caps and ridiculous small coils, often with iron cores inside. Ask why and then guess what such a "high end " cross over may cost in China. Hint: Less than you get charged for a single small "silver-gold-in oil-evo-cap". These speakers are reviewed as world class!
Where consumers are educated and really want perfect sound, you hardly find any passive speaker any more. Say "studio-monitor".
Just a very private opinion.
I will admitt, in my experience the amplifier plays a very important role as there are some speaker that sound much better with another amp, even as both are not really bad. What I count as "amp sound". Some say all amps sound the same... Ok.
Many mediocre amps do not like the caps and coils in the way off the amplified signal. Like many valve amps, that need an impedance correction to bloom.
For some reason the low voltage signal before the amp, with only very little current flowing, does not care much about passing capacitors. As any signal has passed an uncountable number of them, resistors and op-amps, during recording on it's way to the final amplifier. Not too many coils.
On the other hand, a lot of people rave about full range speakers and blame the superior sound on the absence of a passive x-over. Indeed, the way some full range speaker's perform, is impressive and remembers me of the improvement I heard in activated speakers. Anyway, even in a full range speaker the signal has to pass at least throug a resistor and a coil, but this seems less harmfull.
By the way, I know of developer that use DSP and single amps for every speaker to verify a speaker concept, then start to build the passive x-over to match the DSP curve, because it is wanted passive by the industry.
Look at the most expensive speaker, many have "Benic" caps and ridiculous small coils, often with iron cores inside. Ask why and then guess what such a "high end " cross over may cost in China. Hint: Less than you get charged for a single small "silver-gold-in oil-evo-cap". These speakers are reviewed as world class!
Where consumers are educated and really want perfect sound, you hardly find any passive speaker any more. Say "studio-monitor".
Just a very private opinion.
Last edited:
I know of no evidence of this... that is, even a driver on its own has a varying impedance that mimics a capacitor at some frequencies, a resistor at some, and an inductor at others.
Since speakers are reactive even without added components, as I've just said, this would apply to every speaker.. but to make that clearer,
DSP systems don't by default take this into account (although they could) so ironically, if this were a problem then you'd have to add passive components to fix it for DSP systems.
DSP systems don't by default take this into account (although they could) so ironically, if this were a problem then you'd have to add passive components to fix it for DSP systems.
I design and build both active and passive speakers. Currently I am doing more of the active DSP speakers, but I have done passive speakers in the past, and I intend to do passive speakers in the future.
Passive speakers are not inherently inferior to active speakers.
At the very highest levels of performance (and cost), I think I could get more performance out of an active DSP system than a passive one, but that speaks more to my limitations than to the inherent limitations of the technology.
At a more modest cost point, it is difficult for an active speaker to perform as well as a passive one. Good quality class D amps are not free, and 6 channels of quality amplification plus 6 channels of DSP sets a price floor of about $800 for a pair of 3-way speakers... assuming we want a fully self-contained system. If a person wants to have a PC doing the DSP work, that's fine, but it is not really comparable to a passive speaker... it is more like a perpetual prototype, not an aesthetically acceptable living-room solution.
So at a more modest price point, the active speaker starts with a significant price disadvantage. If my total driver/electronics budget is $1000 per pair, well you can see where this leads. A well designed, but small active 2-way speaker versus a much larger 3-way passive speaker. Depending on how much value we place on bass extension and SPL capability, the passive speaker may perform a little better or a lot better.
Passive speakers are not inherently inferior to active speakers.
At the very highest levels of performance (and cost), I think I could get more performance out of an active DSP system than a passive one, but that speaks more to my limitations than to the inherent limitations of the technology.
At a more modest cost point, it is difficult for an active speaker to perform as well as a passive one. Good quality class D amps are not free, and 6 channels of quality amplification plus 6 channels of DSP sets a price floor of about $800 for a pair of 3-way speakers... assuming we want a fully self-contained system. If a person wants to have a PC doing the DSP work, that's fine, but it is not really comparable to a passive speaker... it is more like a perpetual prototype, not an aesthetically acceptable living-room solution.
So at a more modest price point, the active speaker starts with a significant price disadvantage. If my total driver/electronics budget is $1000 per pair, well you can see where this leads. A well designed, but small active 2-way speaker versus a much larger 3-way passive speaker. Depending on how much value we place on bass extension and SPL capability, the passive speaker may perform a little better or a lot better.
A competent active approach provides a number of technical advantages and no disadvantages compared to a competent passive one. If you have doubts ask some of those promoting passive to name a technical advantage. Having said that a well designed passive crossover with a driver configuration suitable for a passive crossover (the better performing speakers today in terms of directivity control and compensating for component variations are tending to require the flexibility of an active approach) should result in only subtle rather than obvious audible differences.
In terms of delivered technical performance for the system cost (i.e. including amplifiers and cases) for a manufacturer an active approach became superior about 20 years ago as is reflected in the prosumer audio sector where this is a more important factor than it is in the audiophile home audio sector. There are of course other important factors in both sectors. Unfortunately the low costs to a manufacturer is not reflected in a convenient less integrated DIY hobby approach using separate boxes and/or boards priced for the tiny DIY market. There is no way a DIY active approach can get anywhere near the price and packaging of active prosumer speakers in the budget to midpriced range.
As a hobbyist accepting the limitations of a passive crossover may be the way to go given what is seen as important and/or fun but it will limit to some extent the technical performance achievable and prevent the adoption of techniques that require the flexibility of an active DSP approach.
Thank you for the very valuable advice Now that i had just discovered the series xovers and got fascinated i understand there is another very promising approach
Again the barrier between me and an active solution is the more complication
I had an idea to get a used powered speaker to use its amps and cabinet
Unfortunately cheap 3 ways actives don't exist at all
Usually drivers are crap and it is absolutely understandable
200USD buy a complete active with a 8 inches woofer these day
Now my interest has switched to tweeters with lenses
My reference could be something like the old and discontinued Genelec 1031a
I will ask for lenses
If you don't mind, short philosophic thoughts for your quest:
To me it looks like you are approaching things backwards, bouncing from system topology to another. It looks like you haven't set your goals straight, what are you targeting at? When you set you goal straight it stops, or at least gets directed to right direction.
What is it that you want to do? build speakers obviously, with some good sound as goal but thats quite loose definituon. Is there something more important? like looks, cheap price, some particular components you must use for some reason, some particular size you can fit into room, something else? Decide which order you prioritize these rough low level concepts: sound quality, size, cost (money and time) and looks.
If sound quality is first on the priority list then you can kind of relax, start iterating a system and base all your decisions/thinking on this low level priority list. This is what I mean: what is good sound is imagined by you but some basics that affects us all are enough SPL capability so you can turn it as loud as you want and it keeps sounding better and better until your hearing system (or neighbours) say its too much. Frequency response should be flat (or some target), so controlled and extended enough. If you look at studies what makes good sound quality in general, in a room, its nice bass, smooth DI, some kind of envelopment/spaciousness feel and so on. To get tactile feel, more of our sensors connected to the sound, to get maximum emotions and enjoyment, you probably want to mind about impulse response some and so on. On the other hand looks might be important, and size, of course cost, realities in your life and situation.
Now, start calculating what this kind of very root level lists is and what it actually require from a sound system, and is it something you are willing to do. Whole point here is to set a framework you can always refer back to, to about be able to take compromises on stuff that are less important to you in favor to enable the important stuff as well as possible.
For example, to get enough SPL capability and frequency response extension the system is going to be rather big, perhaps complicated and costly, perhaps ugly. Perhaps much bigger than pair of 1031, if you start calculating actual numbers. Question is then are you willing to do it, or do you rather sacrifice some of the sound quality to size and cost reduction for example?
It is not too hard question if you have your priority list true. Now you base your decision to the initial low level priority list between sound quality/size/cost/looks, you can comfortably continue reaching towards your end goal system and be happy with your decision all along the way and keep nice progress happening with the system design. Fun times, brings lots of questions to your mind, luckily wealth of information available on the net
You could build/buy genelec type speakers to see how they come about. If you find them somehow lacking you know more about what might be better, if you are aware of what you are doing, what you are hearing, you are ale to figure out what would work better with your preferences in your room, in your application.
By necessity there is going to be some learning process and some speakers revolving around before reaching the end goal. Hopefully some speakers sticks so you can have a reference that you wanna better it with another system. Inevitably you need to find out what you like so you can strive towards it, and listen to systems and figure out what needs to be improved.
Hope it helps
To me it looks like you are approaching things backwards, bouncing from system topology to another. It looks like you haven't set your goals straight, what are you targeting at? When you set you goal straight it stops, or at least gets directed to right direction.
What is it that you want to do? build speakers obviously, with some good sound as goal but thats quite loose definituon. Is there something more important? like looks, cheap price, some particular components you must use for some reason, some particular size you can fit into room, something else? Decide which order you prioritize these rough low level concepts: sound quality, size, cost (money and time) and looks.
If sound quality is first on the priority list then you can kind of relax, start iterating a system and base all your decisions/thinking on this low level priority list. This is what I mean: what is good sound is imagined by you but some basics that affects us all are enough SPL capability so you can turn it as loud as you want and it keeps sounding better and better until your hearing system (or neighbours) say its too much. Frequency response should be flat (or some target), so controlled and extended enough. If you look at studies what makes good sound quality in general, in a room, its nice bass, smooth DI, some kind of envelopment/spaciousness feel and so on. To get tactile feel, more of our sensors connected to the sound, to get maximum emotions and enjoyment, you probably want to mind about impulse response some and so on. On the other hand looks might be important, and size, of course cost, realities in your life and situation.
Now, start calculating what this kind of very root level lists is and what it actually require from a sound system, and is it something you are willing to do. Whole point here is to set a framework you can always refer back to, to about be able to take compromises on stuff that are less important to you in favor to enable the important stuff as well as possible.
For example, to get enough SPL capability and frequency response extension the system is going to be rather big, perhaps complicated and costly, perhaps ugly. Perhaps much bigger than pair of 1031, if you start calculating actual numbers. Question is then are you willing to do it, or do you rather sacrifice some of the sound quality to size and cost reduction for example?
It is not too hard question if you have your priority list true. Now you base your decision to the initial low level priority list between sound quality/size/cost/looks, you can comfortably continue reaching towards your end goal system and be happy with your decision all along the way and keep nice progress happening with the system design. Fun times, brings lots of questions to your mind, luckily wealth of information available on the net
You could build/buy genelec type speakers to see how they come about. If you find them somehow lacking you know more about what might be better, if you are aware of what you are doing, what you are hearing, you are ale to figure out what would work better with your preferences in your room, in your application.
By necessity there is going to be some learning process and some speakers revolving around before reaching the end goal. Hopefully some speakers sticks so you can have a reference that you wanna better it with another system. Inevitably you need to find out what you like so you can strive towards it, and listen to systems and figure out what needs to be improved.
Hope it helps
Last edited:
Hi you are very right Let me explain my situation
I have to work in the kitchen at least until I get a space to set up a little workshop
I am still looking for it actively
In the meantime if i had to do for instance some woodwork i have to pay and a lot for it
So at present my only chance is to mod something cheap upgrading some strategic parts
I have already upgraded a crossover with better caps and it worked fine
I am still undecided about actives or passives
I could use the amplification gutting some cheap powered speaker to power an already good passive
At present i have two pairs of powered speakers
Unfortunately the crossing point is set at 2khz for both
The amp part is decent They are from Behringer
I would like to end with a 3 ways where the mid and the high use a passive crossover
I have already good 2 inches domes to try out as midrange by Dynaudio and Itt
I would need a 2 ways plate amp with a variable crossing frequency
I can't even think to add external amps with a lot of cables No way
Another much easier solution could be to take an already good classic 2 ways crossed at 2k and make it actives using the amps gutted from the powered speakers
The plate amps need only an xlr and a power cord
But the problem is the crossover point
I needed one below 1k. At around 6-700 Hz would be perfect
A biamped 3 ways
2 ways have more limitations
I have to work in the kitchen at least until I get a space to set up a little workshop
I am still looking for it actively
In the meantime if i had to do for instance some woodwork i have to pay and a lot for it
So at present my only chance is to mod something cheap upgrading some strategic parts
I have already upgraded a crossover with better caps and it worked fine
I am still undecided about actives or passives
I could use the amplification gutting some cheap powered speaker to power an already good passive
At present i have two pairs of powered speakers
Unfortunately the crossing point is set at 2khz for both
The amp part is decent They are from Behringer
I would like to end with a 3 ways where the mid and the high use a passive crossover
I have already good 2 inches domes to try out as midrange by Dynaudio and Itt
I would need a 2 ways plate amp with a variable crossing frequency
I can't even think to add external amps with a lot of cables No way
Another much easier solution could be to take an already good classic 2 ways crossed at 2k and make it actives using the amps gutted from the powered speakers
The plate amps need only an xlr and a power cord
But the problem is the crossover point
I needed one below 1k. At around 6-700 Hz would be perfect
A biamped 3 ways
2 ways have more limitations
Last edited:
Maybe i write down what a lot of people think about this thread:
You are an unrealistic dreamer. Your dreams are nightmares for anyone who has intentions in quality HIFI.
Be honest, just one time: you want is to build a high end speaker without spending reasonable or even any money, from garbage you picked out of other peoples trash can's. You don't like to learn any theories, as you are sure to know enough and understand anything without it. You are a genius, right?
You don't like to listen to advise, as we have returned multiple times to the point the thread started.
So one could see all these 17 pages as a very successful troll thread. At least you checked the boxes, repeating the some nonsense and ignoring any well thought out post.
You are an unrealistic dreamer. Your dreams are nightmares for anyone who has intentions in quality HIFI.
Be honest, just one time: you want is to build a high end speaker without spending reasonable or even any money, from garbage you picked out of other peoples trash can's. You don't like to learn any theories, as you are sure to know enough and understand anything without it. You are a genius, right?
You don't like to listen to advise, as we have returned multiple times to the point the thread started.
So one could see all these 17 pages as a very successful troll thread. At least you checked the boxes, repeating the some nonsense and ignoring any well thought out post.