Active vs passive crossover

@erik_squires wrote:

These [A/D to D/A conversion] are 2 new steps which must be introduced into the chain for active digital crossovers. Question is, how do I evaluate the sound quality of each step and decide if I like it? Well, I have to listen to the finished product.

With a few decades of experience listening to a variety of great measuring DAC’s I know that some great measuring DAC’s sound like crap.

On paper, if all sounded great, and all A/D and D/A steps were perfect then the active digital crossover offers a number of advantages vs. passive but it’s not necessarily simpler.

My take is you’re complicating matters unnecessarily here. Quite a few factors determine the sonic outcome and differences on the active side vs. a passive system, but to me it simply comes down to one listening scenario (active) vs. the other (passive).

Comparing the same pair of speakers (indeed a variety of speakers in a range of setups) going from being passively to actively configured, the outcome to my/our ears has always been in favor of the latter - by a wide margin. I’ll spare you the details in perceived sonic differences though and instead cut to the chase: who cares if the A/D to D/A conversion in the DSP unit used isn’t "perfect" when what’s served in the end is the better sounding meal?

You can avoid the A/D to D/A conversion with a digital input, of course, having only the D/A conversion to worry about in the DSP, but the same applies: which scenario sounds better on the whole, speculations about the detrimental effects of conversions and other be damned?

If a less optimal DSP (bad converters or whatever) still pulls off the trick, then going further with a better DSP is just a bonus, and yet for some reason active has to be "perfect" in all of its implementing steps for many to even consider it, while forgetting all along that passive configuration is hardly perfect itself - far from it, in fact.

Now I must deal with multiple amplifiers per speaker. Does the speaker maker pick those? Do I?

Fortunately active config. means amps are less important and less distinguished when presented with an easier load sans passive cross-over, performing much closer to their full potential and also making more effective use of their power envelope. Which is also saying that the choice of amps is less critical with active config. than it is with passive speakers.

If in doubt use the same amps from, say, 100Hz on up, and wait to be surprised how well even very cheap amps sound actively configured. If you have simple, 2-way stand-mounted speakers and two different stereo amps lying around, try it out actively. Two different amps crossing over in the 2-3kHz region may not be ideal, though.

Myself I have a single point source per channel from ~600Hz on up and a different amp here vs. below 600Hz (and yet another one from ~85Hz and down) - no issue at all. Truly, it sounds great with no perceived lack of coherence. Would a similar pair of amps from 85Hz on up do better in my system? Perhaps, or maybe not - a 600Hz XO would seem somewhat less critical using different amps. If similar amps do fare better, well, then - again - it’s just an added bonus.

My choice has been to optimize performance of the MF/HF horn with 30W Class-A (and 111dB sensitivity), and then power the heck out of it from 600Hz on down with a combined 2.5kW per channel with excellent pro amps (Lab.Gruppen and Crown). All of this is the freedom active config. affords you, not to mention setting up filter values by yourself on the fly.

My point is definitely not pro or anti either approach. My point is that in practicality there are a number of complexities and trade offs which prevent blanket statements about the superiority of either approach.

At the end of the day statements on the sonic outcome must arise from the final listening test. In all the setups I’ve heard it compared (as a separate component solution), active has always trumped passive. Let that be a blanket statement on my part for my ears, with the proviso that implementation is paramount, but even so sub-optimally implemented active still showed its merits as that which needed to be followed.

But, my question is, why the vast majority of companies in this industry still chooses the passive route

Maybe because they are old and established?

Maybe look at Buchart or Dutch-n-Dutch or Genelecs. And then listen and compare them to passive gear.

Both can sound great.

I am pretty sure I would go active if I was starting out now.

My take is you’re complicating matters unnecessarily here. Quite a few factors determine the sonic outcome and differences on the active side vs. a passive system, but to me it simply comes down to one listening scenario (active) vs. the other (passive).

@phusis 

You missed WHY I was so detailed.

My point was to explain why it is impossible to make blanket statements about the superiority of passive or active speakers.  While evaluating a complete system is relatively simple, explaining why there's no single element here that automatically and undeniably makes one speaker type superior required explanation.

@erik_squires wrote:

You missed WHY I was so detailed.

My point was to explain why it is impossible to make blanket statements about the superiority of passive or active speakers. While evaluating a complete system is relatively simple, explaining why there’s no single element here that automatically and undeniably makes one speaker type superior required explanation.

Your first reply to this thread went:

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.

The problem is your premise: claimed complexity and an extra A/D to D/A conversion representing "important negatives." I tried to explain at least the A/D conversion can be avoided with a digital input, so an A/D conversion step is not necessarily a prerequisite of a DSP. Concerning the "other components," well, the DSP replaces a passive filter situated pre-amplification, so just a substitute here, and extra amps are just that; go with similar ones and it’s just duplication like bi-amping, or mono blocks. I don’t see how that constitutes complexity per se.

And what’re the extra components here that "interferes" - more amps? There are just more amp channels, each of which now feeds its dedicated driver segment without a passive filter in between. Any which way you want to bend this, that’s a big benefit. The passive filter in itself on the other hand is one heck of an interference, as it keeps the amp from "seeing" the driver directly and controlling it optimally. The DSP here gets out of the output way and functions on signal level instead.

So how does the DSP itself interfere sonically? You mention A/D to D/A conversion as a negative, and I’m saying that as taking over the place of a passive cross-over it’s the least of your problems. Forest for the trees, as they say.

While evaluating a complete system is relatively simple ...

Then why not keep it at that? It seems to me your dodging this simple approach is because you’re stuck with theorizing instead of actually trying out active configuration in your own primary setup, and this is where the real element of complexity may arise: setting filter values by yourself in the digital domain. If however you can deal with DIY speakers and passive cross-over using your ears is the final "tool," you sure as hell are able to take on a DSP and make filter settings on the fly in your listening position.

Active configuration is new to many if not most, but the real hurdle seems to be getting started in the first place and break down those presumptions.

Then why not keep it at that? It seems to me your dodging this simple approach is because you’re stuck with theorizing instead of actually trying out active configuration in your own primary setup,

Wow, you so misread me it’s sad. I’ve never disagreed with this approach nor have I dodged it. When comparing a specific implementation this is the right approach. That’s not what the OP asked though, and you keep trying to answer the wrong question, and seem to be policing me for not answering YOUR version of the OP’s question. That’s not going to work.

The OP asked a hypothetical and my nuanced answer is to explain why a an absolute answer is not possible. There is no absolute "better" for active or passive in home applications.

I have a long history of using active and passive speakers.  The active setups I've used, configured or built involved both digital and analog crossovers in home and professional setups, but you keep trying to school the wrong schoolmaster. Maybe you can stop policing my answers now, @phusis because at the end of the day it just seems you want to be contrarian for no particular reason.