Active vs passive crossover
I think most of forumers in this plaftorm know what are active/passive crossover (essentially crossover before/after the amplification) and understand the pros and cons of them. Some if not all might even agree the best sound reproduction solution is active crossover with DSP. But, my question is, why the vast majority of companies in this industry still chooses the passive route.
"Best sounding" is not how I would universally qualify passive crossovers. Complexity and the desire to avoid an extra A/D, D/A conversion step are important negatives. If I am the type to want to go out and buy a fancy DAC and amplifier I don't necessarily want to have the sound quality interfered with by another component I wont' be able to evaluate as thoroughly. |
Money and the ability to blow up their drivers, with our screw ups. The tech support lines would never shut up.. I could see the warrantee lines, behind, OOPS! and expect the manufacture to pay for their messing around. I could hear the conversation. I don't know, it just started smoking and quit working.. :-) Regards |
@erik_squires"best sounding is not how I would universally classify ACTIVE crossovers." I got this part. Maybe you had experience (A/B comparison) with it and I am not going to dispute that. But why the complexity and the desire to avoid an extra A/D, D/A conversion step are important "negatives?" Why does that become "negatives"? I thought being able to avoid A-D-A in the passive crossover greatly helps preserve the quality of signal. Maybe you know something that I don't... |
